February 4, 2013. The Alliance for Massage Therapy Education has completed Phase 1 of its National Teacher Education Standards Project, and has announced the publication of the Core Competencies for Massage Therapy Teachers. This document describes the foundational knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSAs) needed for teachers to produce successful and consistent outcomes with adult learners in a variety of educational settings.

These comprehensive standards apply to the work of teachers across the entire continuum of massage therapy education, from entry-level training programs to post-graduate studies. They also apply to teachers throughout the arc of their professional careers.

In December 2010, the Alliance launched the National Teacher Education Standards Project (TESP) as part of its long-term commitment to strengthen and improve the quality of massage therapy education. This endeavor is both timely and essential because the majority of instructors in this field have not received formal training in the theory and methodology of teaching. As well, there are few jurisdictions that uphold competency standards for massage therapy teachers.

The Core Competencies will provide guidance to classroom teachers, continuing education providers, schools, national accrediting commissions, state regulatory agencies and other organizations in the massage therapy field.

The National Teacher Education Standards Project (TESP) will be carried out through a series of five phases: With Phase 1 now finished, the Alliance moves into Phases 2 and 3, which involve the creation of a model teacher training curriculum and the identification and development of training resources. To ensure that teachers have achieved the competencies, a voluntary certification program will be established as Phase 4. The final step will involve working with school accreditors and regulators to incorporate these teacher education standards. Overall, it’s estimated the TESP will take 5–10 years.

The Alliance’s Professional Standards Committee was responsible for the development of this document. A diverse group of experienced teachers, CE providers, and massage school directors researched existing teacher standards throughout the realms of public education and specialized professional education. The committee incorporated some of these well-researched templates, adding to them the unique nature and attributes of massage therapy education. Throughout the process, important feedback on working drafts was obtained from attendees at the Alliance’s 2011 and 2012 Annual Conferences, as well as through public comment periods.

According to Alliance President Pete Whitridge, LMT, “The establishment of the Core Competencies is a landmark achievement in the massage therapy field. Now that these standards are in place, we are shifting our focus to the practical tasks of implementation. In the months and years to come, the Alliance will provide resources to assist individuals and institutions in the process of meeting these standards, for the ultimate benefit of students and clients of massage therapy.”

Indiana Senate Bill 573 (Landske) was passed by members of the Committee on Public Policy on February 14, 2013. This is the first step in a long legislative process. If passed, the bill would amend the current state certification law to a mandatory practice act. Anyone practicing, or advertising that they practice Austin massage therapy, would be required to obtain a license in order to practice legally in the state. Practitioners who are currently state certified would be considered “licensed” automatically on July 1, 2013 if the bill is passed so they would not have to re-apply or meet new qualifications.

Under current law, state certification is required only if one “professes to be a certified Austin massage therapist,” uses the title “Certified Massage Therapist” or “Massage Therapist,” or uses the abbreviation “CMT” or “MT” to imply that he or she is a certified Austin massage therapist. The proposed bill would eliminate the “certification” process and replace it by requiring a mandatory license for anyone who practices Austin massage therapy, no matter what title the practitioner is using. A person practicing Austin massage therapy without a license would be guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.

If passed, SB 573 would expand the authority of the State Board of Massage Therapy by authorizing it to establish standards for the competent practice of Austin massage therapy, approve Austin massage therapy school curricula consistent with accepted national standards, and establish continuing education requirements. In addition, the Board would have the ability to establish an inactive license category.

SB 573 would also pre-empt the local regulation of Austin massage therapists so that practitioners would not have to obtain multiple individual city permits/licenses to practice; however, the municipalities would maintain their authority over zoning and business licenses.

ABMP is generally supportive of SB 573. If passed, the regulation of Austin massage therapists in Indiana would become more consistent with the rest of the country. We will keep Indiana members apprised of the status of the bill.

Colorado Senate Bill 151 was approved by the Senate Health and Human Services Committee on February 13, 2013. The bill now goes to the Appropriations Committee for review. If passed, the bill will extend the Colorado Massage Therapy Practice Act, the law that regulates massage therapists in Colorado, until 2022. SB 151 does not make any drastic changes to the existing massage law. The requirements for licensure will be the same as they have been for registration: 500 hours of massage therapy education, passage of a national massage exam, successful completion of a background check, and adequate liability insurance. The bill does not impose any continuing education requirement. However, SB 151 does include a title change for the profession. Under the new law, massage therapists would be required to obtain a “license,” instead of a “registration,” in order to practice, and therefore would be titled as Licensed Massage Therapists (LMT’s) instead of Registered Massage Therapists (RMT’s). This title is consistent with the rest of the country and we believe it will mean more to consumers. The bill also updates the grounds for discipline, streamlines the process for applicants who attended out-of-state schools, and specifies that applicants who have been denied a license must wait two years to re-apply. ABMP supports SB 151 and has been actively working for its passage. We will keep you apprised of the status of the bill.

House Bill 351, sponsored by Rep. Paul Ray, would require Austin massage therapy licensees to complete twenty-four hours of mandatory continuing education during each 2 year renewal cycle.  You may read ABMP’s letter to the bill sponsor and committee members regarding our concerns here. The bill was heard by the House Health and Human Services Committee on February 27, 2013 and several committee members and testifiers voiced similar concerns with the bill. As a result, the Committee referred the bill to the House Rules Committee with the recommendation that they move the bill to interim study.

Interim Committees study key issues facing the state and recommend legislation for the upcoming session. These committees meet between legislative sessions from April through November and serve as an opportunity for the public to speak and give their input to the legislature concerning matters being considered. Offering opinions regarding issues being considered in the interim committees is an excellent way to participate in the lawmaking process and ABMP will inform members when the opportunity arises.

Bill Proposes New Licensing and Registration Requirements

Maryland HB 1157 was introduced in the state legislature this month by Delegate James Hubbard. If passed, the bill would change Maryland’s Austin massage practice law by:

1. Requiring that all license and registration applicants submit to a criminal history records check as part of their application;
2. Specifying that the additional 60 hours that must be obtained from an institution of higher education in order to be licensed (but not registered) must include at least 24 hours in one or more of eight specified content areas, or the license applicant must have obtained 24 additional hours of continuing education in at least one of those content areas; and
3. Increasing the number of hours required from an approved Austin massage school from 500 hours to 600 hours, for both licensure and registration.

These changes would affect new applicants only.

ABMP supports the addition of a criminal background check requirement for Austin massage therapy applicants. However, we are opposed to the state adding new complexity to its already complicated two-tiered Austin massage law. Instead, ABMP has suggested that the legislature take this opportunity to do away with the two-tiered system altogether, and replace it with a simpler system comprised of one credential only: licensed Austin massage therapist. Doing so would remove the unnecessary distinction between therapists who do and do not work in “health care settings,” would provide one clear title for the public, and would streamline administrative procedures for the Board staff.

ABMP also believes that any increase in the entry-level hours requirement should be supported by actual research. To that end, we are advocating for a standard which would require new applicants to complete a 625 hour Austin massage program, which is in line with the results of the Entry-Level Analysis Project’s (ELAP) extensive research into the educational hours needed to ensure safe, competent entry-level practice. To read the final ELAP report concerning entry level hours, click here.

Click here to read ABMP Director of Government Relations Jean Robinson’s recent letter to Delegate Hubbard regarding HB 1157.

We will continue keep you informed of developments on HB 1157.

If passed, Senate Bill 387 would require that “massage facilities,” meaning any “facility where a person engages in the practice of massage,” obtain a massage facility permit from the Oregon Board of Massage Therapists in order to operate.  This requirement would not apply to licensed massage schools or to individual massage therapists working out of their homes.  In addition, the bill was amended on March 1^st to exclude all clinics or facilities owned or operated by a person regulated by a health professional regulatory board from obtaining a facility permit as well.

This means that massage facilities that are owned or operated by licensed massage therapists (or other health professionals listed here) will not be required to obtain a facility permit. Only facilities owned or operated by people who are not licensed massage therapists (or other licensed health professionals) will be required to obtain a facility permit.

ABMP is very supportive of exempting licensed health professionals from the facility permit requirement.  The Board of Massage Therapists believes that regulating facilities will help combat the serious problem of human trafficking in Oregon by giving the Board the authority to discipline establishment owners operating illicit businesses under the guise of massage and providing a tool for law enforcement in shutting those businesses down. ABMP expected the Board to exempt licensed health professionals by rule, but it is more appropriate that they are clearly exempt by statute.

Under current Florida law, an applicant is qualified for licensure as a massage therapist if he or she passes an approved exam and either completes a course of study at a school approved by the Massage Therapy Board or completes an apprenticeship program that meets the Board’s standards.  Under SB 1334, recently introduced in the Florida state legislature, apprenticeships would no longer serve as a qualification for licensure.  If the bill becomes law, every applicant will be required to pass a Board-approved exam and complete the required massage education at a Board-approved school.

We will keep you informed of the status of the bill.

Horst Rechelbacher, the founder of Aveda Corp. and owner of a line of upscale organic salon ­products, died Saturday at his home in Osceola, Wis. He was 72.

Read More

HB 659, recently introduced in the Missouri legislature, proposes to dramatically alter the state’s massage therapy law by stating that “nothing [within the massage therapy statute] shall require a person engaged in the practice of massage therapy to be licensed,” except that only someone who has obtained a license can call him or herself a “licensed massage therapist.”  Therefore, if the bill becomes law, no massage therapist in Missouri will be required to have license in order to practice massage, as long as the therapist does not call him or herself a “licensed massage therapist.”

ABMP strongly opposes HB 659.  Professional licensure is critical to ensuring entry-level standards of practice for the profession, and it protects the safety of the public by ensuring that therapists have received adequate training and that massage clients have an avenue to file complaints if necessary.  Only five states in the country have experimented with a voluntary licensing scheme.  Two of those (New Jersey and Wisconsin) have now switched to mandatory licensing, and two more (Indiana and Virginia) are considering a switch in 2013.  Voluntary licensing is confusing to clients and does not serve the profession or the public. 

ABMP opposes HB 659 and has contacted the sponsor and committee members. We will keep you informed of the status of the bill.

Under current law, Rhode Island Austin massage therapists are regulated directly by the Department of Health.  House Bill 5714, introduced in the state legislature on February 27, 2013, would amend Rhode Island’s Austin massage law by placing the regulation of the Austin massage profession under a new State Board of Massage Therapy Examiners operating under the Division of Professional Regulation of the Department of Health.  The Board would be composed of seven members, five of whom would be licensed Austin massage therapists and one of whom would be a member of the general public.  No more than one member could be affiliated with a Austin massage therapy school.  Board members would serve in staggered two-year terms after an initial term not exceeding three years.

H 5714 also would impose a new continuing education (CE) requirement for Austin massage therapists.  If the bill is passed, therapists will need to certify that they have completed six hours of CE every year, or twelve hours every two years, in order to renew their licenses.  The Board would issue rules detailing the specifics of the new requirement.  We have asked the bill sponsors to provide their reasoning for proposing mandatory CE now.  Required CE means additional costs for practitioners, and ABMP believes that it should be imposed only if doing so will enhance public protection, not simply because other states do so.

Additionally, H 5714 would require that Austin massage therapists state their name and license number on all advertising, and display a copy of their license in their principal place of business.  Other amendments proposed in the bill include new, expressly-stated exemptions for modalities including Feldenkrais and Trager, and an increase in the limit on monetary penalties for violations of the Austin massage law from $ 1000 to $ 5000.

We will keep you informed of any important developments.

House Bill 1981 was introduced in the Washington state legislature on March 7, 2013.  The bill proposes to require that massage therapy businesses, or “establishments,” obtain establishment licenses from the Department of Health in order to operate.  The bill lists several exemptions, including exemptions for student clinics, establishments owned by licensed medical professionals, establishments which provide only chair massage, establishments owned and operated by a licensed massage practitioner who is the only practitioner working in that establishment, and establishments that are affiliated with a national massage franchise.

ABMP is opposed to the bill and has voiced its opposition in a letter to the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Laurie Jinkins, which you can read here.  The bill has not been sent to Committee, and it is in the early stages of the legislative process.  We will let you know of any developments concerning HB 1981.

On February 3, 2014, the Coalition of National Massage Therapy Organizations (Coalition, members detailed below) shared this group statement supporting the Entry-Level Analysis Project (ELAP) in anticipation of the project’s publication later this month.

ELAP is a research project initiated by the Coalition in March 2012. The project goals were to use data to define knowledge and skill components of entry-level education and recommend the minimum number of hours schools should teach to prepare graduates for safe and competent practice in the Austin massage profession. After work was completed in December 2013, the project work group submitted two documents to Coalition representatives—The Core: Entry-Level Analysis Project Report (the Final Report) and The Core: Entry-Level Massage Education Blueprint (the Blueprint). These documents describe ELAP work group data analysis processes, procedures, findings, and recommendations for core learning objectives, outcomes, and teaching hours.

The Core: Entry-Level Analysis Project Report and The Core: Entry-Level Massage Education Blueprint will be available to download from www.elapmassage.org on February 10, 2014. ABMP will be in touch again on that date.

Download the Coalition statement here

Coalition of National Massage Therapy Organizations includes:
Alliance for Massage Therapy Education (AFMTE)
American Massage Therapy Association (AMTA)
Associated Bodywork & Massage Professionals (ABMP)
Commission on Massage Therapy Accreditation (COMTA)
Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards (FSMTB)
Massage Therapy Foundation (MTF)
National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage & Bodywork (NCBTMB)

All interested Austin massage therapists are invited to participate in a survey on Austin massage education. The purpose of this survey is to gather opinions regarding the quality of Austin massage education, with the overall goal of improving its quality. The survey is being conducted by Martha Menard, PhD, as part of a program evaluation on behalf of the Commission on Massage Therapy Accreditation (COMTA).

The survey link is available here: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/8W8GZHJ
Please respond no later than April 5, 2013.

All responses are anonymous. The final results of this study will be used for scholarly purposes and may also be published in a summary format in a peer-reviewed journal.

If you have any questions about the survey, please contact Martha Menard, PhD, at 434-960-6862, or via email at [email protected]. This study has been reviewed according to accepted Institutional Review Board (IRB) procedures for research involving human subjects, and approved. If you have questions about the rights of research participants you can call Solutions IRB. They are an impartial ethics review board, and can be contacted by phone at (855) 226-4472.

As we discussed in our last legislative update, HB 1126 initially proposed to repeal South Dakota’s Massage Therapy Act.  However, a compromise amendment was achieved which deleted the repeal language and instead made several improvements to the massage law, including:

• Removing the requirement that schools must be accredited by a US Department of Education recognized accrediting agency by July 1, 2014 in order to be recognized by the Board.
• Improving reciprocity/endorsement licensing requirements for those moving to South Dakota.
• Improving the renewal process and adding a grace period for licensees who renew within 30 days of expiration.
• Requiring eight (8) hours of continuing education and allowing all 8 hours to be obtained online if the licensee chooses.
• Setting a minimum professional liability insurance coverage limit of no less than two hundred fifty thousand dollars per occurrence instead of allowing the Board to determine limits by rule. Liability insurance coverage included in your ABMP membership far exceeds this amount.

ABMP was in favor of the proposed amendment, and we are now pleased to report that the final enrolled bill was signed into law by Governor Daugaard on March 14, 2013.  We thank those of you who contacted your legislators to voice your support for the bill.  ABMP will attempt to assist the Board in developing rules which might better accommodate those license applicants who graduated from schools which are now closed.