a community of practitioners

Are there any legislative updates in your state that you'd like to share with the group?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ariana Vincent, LMT, MTI, BCTMB on February 10, 2011 at 1:06am

Thanks so much for your posts about legislative updates. Fascinating!

Permalink Reply by Michael Huber on February 10, 2011 at 6:49am

First off, I agree with you, there are Massage Therapists with under 500 hours of training that are great at what they do, some people are born with the passion and talent naturally, but they are the exception and not the rule. I have also seen Therapists with poor training burn out due to bad body mechanics, poor business knowledge and even though they had a lot of passion. I like the fact that training is required as it encourages massage therapists to get the foundation that will help them have a healthy and long career and be able to choose how they want to express that passion even easier.

I could easily come down on your side due to all the bad education I have seen Massage Therapists gotten from poor schooling but instead it drives me even harder to ensure my students get a quality education at the school I am a part of. When I had a full time practice I can't count the number of times I ran into clients who were soured on massage by a poor experience which made it harder to have them be open to another one. That, unfortunately, will always happen, but I feel the free market that would be opened up by getting rid of licensing would multiply that experience.

It is one thing for some students to receive a poor education or who choose to ignore their education, it is quite another for anyone to be able to they say do massage, or any type of massage, and represent massage to the public. Maybe in VT due to culture and population this is not a problem, I know for NH and CT it could get interesting, in a bad way, fast. While I don't like that I am told how many CEU's I need to complete in a time frame, it helps remind me to get them, otherwise time seems to slip away and if thats the price to pay for better massage therapists to be out there, I gladly pay it.

Permalink Reply by Diedre Seeley on February 10, 2011 at 8:09am

Michael, I agree that education is important. But my initial training is in the Eastern healing arts, so we have just have a different approach. I've just seen licensing abused so much, that I am adamantly against it and probably always will be. I think the cons far outweigh the benefits. But we're all entitled to our own views on this. And the discussion here is precisely why licensing was put down in Vermont. The MTs themselves were equally divided. So the OPR, in it's wisdom, deemed that there was not sufficient evidence to deem that unlicensed massage was "dangerous" to the public.

Another huge concern is who manages the licensing at the state level. Often times those in charge have no idea about massage or the different modalities and that becomes a nightmare for MTs.

Permalink Reply by Michael Huber on February 11, 2011 at 6:43am

I think I can appreciate your position Diedre and also appreciate what you have shared. My initial training was in energy work and to try to license/regulate that discipline would take away that which makes the discipline special. That being said I have seen too many energy workers with the best of intentions who really have no clue about what they are doing, they take a weekend workshop and start practicing. Guess my fear is it could become that simple for anyone to do Massage and is a lot easier to hurt someone in Massage, noticeably, then in energy work.

Permalink Reply by Kevin Clark on February 11, 2011 at 1:14pm

Michigan -"It will soon be a felony to practice massage without a license." This comes from a Wall Street Journal article dated February 7, 2011: A License to Shampoo: Jobs Needing State Approval Rise

Permalink Reply by Kevin Clark on February 13, 2011 at 8:36am

AMTA-NH on House Bill 446 ...

HB 446 mandates throwback to unlicensed massage therapy in New Hampshire!

Your livelihood in jeopardy

Published Thursday, February 10, 2011

by Vickie Branch>

The Facts as we know it:

HB 446 was introduced to the Executive Departments and Administration Committee

Bill Title: repealing the authority for regulation of certain professional occupations.

Sponsors are: Rep. Bowers, Sullivan 3; Rep. Kurk, Hills 7; Rep. Cohn, Merrimack 6; Rep. Pratt, Hills 7; Rep. Lambert, Hills 27

The professions affected: This bill repeals the regulatory boards and authority for licensure or certification for barbering, cosmetology, and esthetics, including tanning facilities; landscape architecture; court reporting; athletic training; recreational therapy; family mediation; hunting and fishing guides; athlete agents; massage therapists; reflexologists, structural integrators, and Asian bodywork therapists; and hawkers, peddlers, and itinerant vendors.

At the time of submission there was no fiscal impact report competed:

Due to time constraints, the Office of Legislative Budget Assistant is unable to provide a fiscal note for this bill at this time. When completed, the fiscal note will be forwarded to the House Clerk's Office

A public hearing is scheduled for February 22, 2011 At 2pm in Representative's Hall of the Legislative Office Building. I would encourage all interested parties to attend. They do not have to speak but can show support or opposition by signing in at the hearing. If they want to speak, it is helpful to have concise written statements that can also be handed out to the representatives. If they plan to speak and feel that what they have to offer is only a repeat of previous speakers then just pass in the written statement. The Massage Licensing Dept and DHHS lawyer will be in attendance as well as me (Vickie!)

Web site to follow this bill: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_docket.aspx?lsr=14...

Click on upper right corner for Bill status or Bill text for more details

What we don’t know:

Why this bill has been introduced. Since a fiscal impact study has not been completed we do not know if there is a saving of monies. Since the sponsors are all republicans, we might speculate that they just want to cut government regulation in areas that they perceive as being over regulated or un-necessary. [Note from Kevin: We now know that implementation of HB 446 would cost the State money.]

I have been in touch with the Massage Licensing Dept and the Massage Advisory Board. National AMTA is aware as they were the ones who alerted us to the bill. They will offer support if needed. I have also been in touch with The Federation of State Massage Therapy Board asking for advice and support to have all the bodyworkers be omitted from this bill.

Please feel free to contact me at govrelations@amta-nh.org if you have further concerns.