A Place to Learn, Not a Place to Stay - Counselling Psychologist Rocket Health Employee Review

My experience at Rocket Health was marked by a significant gap between how the organization presents itself and how many workplace concerns are handled in practice. One of the most frustrating aspects was the response to employee feedback. Conversations around compensation, growth opportunities, or internal mobility often felt defensive rather than collaborative. When concerns were raised about career progression or salary revisions, the focus frequently shifted toward identifying shortcomings, even when those concerns had not previously been highlighted as major issues. It often felt difficult to advocate for oneself without having the conversation redirected back toward performance metrics. The organization's messaging around flexibility also did not align with my experience. While flexibility is heavily emphasized during recruitment, changing work hours or schedules after joining proved extremely difficult. Once availability was committed, there appeared to be very little room for adjustment unless there were exceptional circumstances. A major red flag was the resignation and compensation process. In my experience, leaving the organization came with significant financial penalties. Despite serving my notice period, approximately one month's salary was deducted, and additional deductions were made during the transition period. Because calendars are closed to new clients during resignation, some appointment slots inevitably remain unfilled, and compensation may be reduced accordingly despite the therapist remaining available to work. The overall financial impact of leaving was far greater than I had anticipated when joining and felt disproportionate to the circumstances. Anyone considering employment should carefully review all clauses related to resignation, notice periods, penalties, payment timelines, and compensation calculations before signing a contract. Delayed payments were another concern. Compensation for work completed after resignation was not always processed promptly, creating uncertainty and financial strain during an already stressful transition period. The mandatory onboarding training was presented as a highly practical and valuable learning experience. However, I found much of the content to be repetitive and theoretical, offering limited practical skills beyond what many mental health professionals already learn through formal education and supervision. Given the financial cost attached to the training, the value proposition did not feel justified. Professional autonomy was also limited in ways that I found concerning. At times, communication appeared to be sent to clients on behalf of therapists without adequate transparency or consultation. Decisions regarding scheduling, client management, and operational processes were often made centrally, leaving clinicians with limited input into matters that directly affected their work. The culture felt heavily driven by retention metrics, subscription renewals, and utilization targets. In many discussions, there appeared to be a stronger emphasis on maintaining user engagement than on the clinical realities of therapy. This business-first approach sometimes felt uncomfortable within a profession that depends on therapeutic fit, clinical judgment, and individualized care. Client allocation also seemed to prioritize therapist availability over therapist-client matching. Assignments often appeared to be based primarily on scheduling compatibility rather than factors such as therapeutic approach, specialization, experience, or client preference. As a result, opportunities to create stronger therapeutic matches could be missed. The compensation structure may also be discouraging for experienced practitioners. Clients are charged similar rates regardless of the therapist's level of expertise, while therapists themselves do not appear to receive meaningful differentiation in compensation based on experience, specialization, or years in practice. This creates little incentive for the organization to retain senior clinicians when less experienced professionals generate similar revenue. Finally, therapist wellbeing often felt secondary to operational demands. High client loads, supervision requirements, administrative responsibilities, demos, and additional organizational tasks could quickly accumulate. When concerns about burnout, overwhelm, or capacity were raised, the responsibility often seemed to be placed back on the therapist rather than being addressed as a systemic workload issue. For a mental health organization, this disconnect was particularly disappointing.