What If Access Was the Standard?

In so many conversations about therapy—especially in schools—I hear one phrase over and over again:

“In-person is better.”

It’s said with conviction. As if it’s obvious. As if that settles the debate.

But what if it’s not about “better”?
What if it’s about who gets access at all?

Because here’s the truth: “better” often means “more familiar to those with power.”
It reflects what we’re used to, not what’s actually possible—or ethical—for the people we serve.

I’m not saying teletherapy is always the answer.
But I am saying this: dismissing it as inherently lesser assumes everyone has the same starting line. And they don’t.

Access isn’t a backup plan. It’s the baseline.
For students in rural areas, medically fragile clients, therapists who are caregivers or chronically ill—virtual care isn’t optional. It’s the only way in.

And when we talk about “quality,” but ignore access, we’re not actually talking about equity. We’re just talking about preference.

It’s time to reframe the conversation.

What if we stopped centering what’s most comfortable for providers—and started centering what’s most sustainable, inclusive, and just?

What if access wasn’t a compromise—but the standard we designed everything around?