The 1949 Boulder Conference established the scientist-practitioner model that has long guided the training of health services psychologists. Its core premise, that practice should be grounded in science, remains a defining strength of our field. But the world psychologists are preparing to enter has changed in fundamental ways, raising an important question: has our training model kept pace?
The pressures are not new, but they have accelerated and converged. Health care financing is shifting from fee-for-service to value-based and integrated care models, requiring a deeper understanding of financial risk and clinical outcomes. Population health has reframed the goal of mental health care, moving beyond only treating individual illness toward proactive system-level interventions that improve mental health across communities. At the same time, demographic changes are reshaping both the populations we serve and the students entering the profession.
Artificial intelligence is amplifying all these trends. AI is increasingly capable of performing structured tasks central to psychological practice, including aspects of assessment, treatment planning, and psychoeducation. This does not diminish the importance of psychologists but does sharpen a central question: What is the distinctive contribution of a health services psychologist in an AI-augmented system of care?
Part of the answer lies in what has always made doctoral-level training in psychology so valuable. In my experience leading large public behavioral health systems, psychologists played critical roles navigating complexity, applying science in real time, and designing interventions at scale. These contributions were high value and often unique. Yet these capabilities were often developed on the job rather than intentionally cultivated through training grounded in science.
This raises a broader issue that predates the evolving health care financing landscape, demographic changes, and AI, but is now more urgent. If the world psychologists work in is changing so rapidly, and our traditional roles are evolving with it, should we reconsider how we train the next generation?
The Boulder model has served us well. But honoring its legacy may require us to do what its architects did: Step back, examine the realities of our time, and design training for the world psychologists will inhabit. What does it mean to be a health services psychologist in this evolving landscape? Are we preparing trainees for the work they will do, or the work we have traditionally done? Does our current model equip psychologists to lead in a population health framework and an AI-enabled system of care? And if not, is it time to begin envisioning a Boulder 2.0?
