ALLIANCE TO PARTNER WITH FSMTB ON NEW NATIONAL CE APPROVAL PROJECT

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Whitney Lowe on April 11, 2011 at 4:36pm

Rick:

Thanks for the post on this. So I can better understand this issue... How will the national program administered by the FSMTB with the Alliance overcome different requirements from the states in the same way that the NCBTMB has to deal with this issue? I am not sure I understand how this will be different. Are all the states automatically going to adopt the FSMTB approval program and how do we know that will occur? As a CE provider it initially seems as if this is just adding one more layer of approvals that we have to go through. Any light you can shed on this would be great and thanks again for the update.

 

Whitney

Permalink Reply by Karina Braun on April 12, 2011 at 12:16pm

Hi Rick,

 

I would also like to have more information about the Alliance and FSMTB. I am an approved provider and it takes alot of time and money to get national approval and approval from many different states. I have worked on a committee for reciprocity between states and it was very difficult. I think trying to get this subject unified would be good but want to know more in detail.

Thank you,

Karina Braun

Permalink Reply by Keith Eric Grant on April 16, 2011 at 7:21pm

Whitney,

I would see this as an outgrowth of the inclusion of CE requirements within state licensing laws. This places the dual requirements on state boards (and other regulatory agencies) of verifying that a candidate satisfies a states initial entry requirements and that they satisfy CE requirements for renewal. Because of the inclusion in regulatory law, this moves this into being a state board responsibility to determine the adequacy of the CE provider as well as adequacy of initial training and knowledge. Such responsibly cannot be shifted to a private agency unless that agency is under contract to the state boards or unless the agency is an association of the state boards, was was also true of an entry level exam.

The big difference I would see is that a CE approval program managed by the FSMTB directly addresses state responsibilities encoded into law. If we wanted to keep CE approval purely private, then we never should have made it into a government responsibility. Given that it is a government responsibility, it makes a lot of sense to unify the effort (and any discussion or feedback to legislatures on unnecessary differences) rather than have the separate state boards take it on individually. I'll also note in passing that CE rarely improves/translates into practice and that the medical profession is relooking at it.Redesigning Continuing Education in the Health Professions

Permalink Reply by Whitney Lowe on April 18, 2011 at 12:08am

Keith:

Thanks for that input and I'll look forward to reading this report. There is one clear difference between CE in the medical field and CE in the massage therapy profession that I think makes CE in our field of much more importance. In many cases people simply don't get sufficient education/training for certain types of work in their initial training. They have to rely on CE in order to be prepared for many types of work they face in the clinical world. I don't think that same situation is true in the medical field, so at least in that realm I think there is some difference.

Permalink Reply by Rick Rosen on April 18, 2011 at 7:15am

Thanks to Whitney and Keith for excellent questions and answers. To follow...

A number of state boards that are members of FSMTB went to their organization to request that it establish a new continuing education approval program -- for the exact reasons that Keith outlined. A state agency cannot legally outsource a key function to an private entity over which it has no oversight or control. It's called Improper Delegation of Authority, and it's the same problem that gave rise to the development of the MBLEx. That exam is owned and operated by FSMTB on behalf of its Member Boards.

Once the new FSMTB CE approval program is in place, it will be up to the state regulatory boards to make changes to their administrative rules (or statutes in a few cases) to reference the new standard in place of the current NCBTMB program -- or to adopt it in place of their own state approval program. Some states are chomping at the bit to be able to do this, while others may take longer to make this shift. That's all in the implementation phase of this project.

From the Alliance's standpoint as a representative of CE providers, the existing system is unacceptable. We want to see a single well-run national approval program so that providers only go through one process and pay one set of fees. FSMTB is the natural agency to house and administer this program, because of the encoding of CE requirements for license renewal in state massage laws. Requirements for renewal of voluntary certification (through NCBTMB) have no bearing on what state boards must uphold.

The question then shifts to: "What will happen to NCB's program?" That's really up to NCB to decide. Interestingly, that organization is NOT required to have its own CE approval program to maintain its accreditation status with the National Commission for Certifying Agencies. Under the NCCA Standards of Accreditation, certification programs must require its certificants to recertify on a regular basis, and to require them to demonstrate continued competence in their field. Exactly how the certification program determines this is left to the individual organization to decide. In this case, NCB could elect to sunset its own CE provider approval program and reference the FSMTB program in its place.

We are at the stage in the evolution of a massage therapy profession where stakeholder organizations are going to have to look beyond their individual needs and agendas and make strategic decisions that support the greater good. This is one of those choice points for NCB.