Yeah, a similar thing can happen in university environments. The last university I was in was run under a business model. Different departments were given their own budget for hiring of staff and tutors and the buying of equipment. Revenue was generated from government funding (allocated on a 'number of students enrolled in classes' per department) basis, along with funding generated from 'number of publications appearing in a journal where the journals are ranked on the basis of impact factor per member of department'.

Science generates more revenue than arts (because impact factor is determined on the basis of citations and science cites more liberally than arts). Science also tends to generate more revenue than arts because more students take science for the better job prospect. Science also generates more revenue than arts because there are alternative sources of funding (e.g., from pharmaceutical companies, or from health research funding, or from the dairy board, or the defence department, or from the private sector etc).

(Typically universities take some of the revenue generated from the sciences and reallocate it to the arts. While it is true that science stuff costs more (lab equipment, machines, etc) it is still true that science is MUCH more lucrative. It is typical that science subsidises the arts. The way the university was going was an outrage... They weren't redistributing the funds from science to arts - the motto was 'every department for itself'. The people in power were from science, basically, and didn't give a %#@&#! about the arts (and didn't appreciate how strong arts departments are historically shown to be a precondition of creative sciences). Downward spiral... I was happy to jump ship.

The department that was doing the best was... ITS (Information technology support). They didn't run classes (indeed they are there to service the departments by providing internet and computer support). In practice... They were charging the particular departments for internet usage, however! They were raking in the funds. Even when... The university owned the server so server usage was free for the university - there was just a transfer of funds from one department in the university to another department! Arts was the worst off because arts students read a lot of stuff via online access. ITS had a monopoly and the prices for internet usage that was charged to the department was outrageous! (My department was paying $50 a week for my internet access - which was insane!)

Politics. Sigh.

The pharmaceutical industry has a lot of money hanging on the acceptance of the biological model of mental disorder. They heavily control the sciences by providing research funding to do the studies they want done and making the cost of obtaining pure samples of the patiented medications too expensive for people to run the studies without the pharmaceutical industry's funding. The science is quite severely perverted... It makes my blood boil...

There are different regulatory bodies that different professionals must be answerable to, yeah.
Clinical psychologists are answerable (in the US) to the American Psychological Association (for their registration / permission to practice as a clinical psychologist, for their professional guidelines etc)
Psychiatrists are answerable (in the US) to the American Psychiatric Association (for their regiatration / permission to practice, professional guidelines etc)