Once apon a time there was a neurologist. The neurologist became interested in cases of paralysis (hence anxiety, depression, and trauma) and developed a talking cure. The neurologists name was Freud.

In the beginning one needed to be an MD before one was permitted to apply to a psychoanalytic institute in order to train in how to give the talking cure.

Psychiatry eventually came to develop a symbiotic (or perhaps mutually parasitic) relationship with pharma. Psychoanalysis came under pressure from the rise of biological (read pharmaceutical) psychiatry on the one hand and from the rise of cognitive behavior therapy (with its efficacy studies) on the other. Psychoanalysis was in danger of being phased out (not many candidates) and so the training institutes opened their doors to related fields such as education, psychology, and social work.

Through all this upheaval... There are clear demarkation lines between individual psychiatrists - and indeed medical schools - who value therapy and those who do not. The latter advertise as being 'biologically' or 'empirically' focused since they tend to not want to advertise their reliance on pharma and pharma trials. The former... Advertise as being more 'pluralistic' or something like that - but given the extreme position of the alternative it is always harder to know whether they mean that therapy is tolerated, tolerated for some conditions, or positively valued.

I prefer to see p-docs for therapy. Has to do with academic focus and theoretical orientation (much more psychoanalytic / psychodynamic orientation from the p-docs who deliver therapy than from the majority of clinical psychologists / counselors who deliver therapy). I tend to click better with someone who has spent so many years of total immersion in a scientific world view. I find I'm much less likely to get weird comments about crystal healing or higher powers or (by my lights) inappropriate self disclosures. Professionalism... Scientific world view... Just my experience... Probably better demographic for me, too (more likely to be older guys than younger females).

Yep, more expensive... Sometimes able to bill it as a 'medical consult' (covered) rather than 'therapy visit' (not covered). (This might not apply to the US). Otherwise... I've mostly seen them in the public service in New Zealand (so I didn't pay them anyways). My p-doc in Australia... Was very generous with offering me an affordable sliding scale... Here... I contacted a person from the psychoanalytic training institute asking whether I could see a candidate for sliding scale... He said I might try x (x was unable to offer me a sliding scale I could afford - this was a clinical psychologist). Then he said I might try seeing a senior resident from the hospital clinic. So... That is what I'm doing, apparently. I qualify for charity care here (seeing as I'm well below the poverty threshold) even though my health insurance explicitly excludes psychiatry / neurology.

She said that her supervisor was an analyst. Not sure whether she is serious (hence might be interested in getting into that herself) or whether she is yanking my chain figuring I don't know the difference between analyst or joe blows counseling clinic...