a community of practitioners

My Report from the Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards Meeting

I just returned from the Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards annual meeting, held at the Gaylord Opryland Hotel in Nashville, TN. I must say that the venue was fabulous--in fact over the top--and miraculously cheap. They gave us a rate of $110 per room, including breakfast and free Internet access. It is one of the most beautiful places I've ever seen. Enough gushing about that--here's what happened at the meeting:

Representatives from 34 boards were present, as were representatives of AMTA, ABMP, and a few other interested parties. PCS (Professional Credentialing Service), which processes candidate applications for the Federation, is based in Nashville, and assisted in every facet of the meeting. They did an excellent job, as did the Board members. The whole thing ran like clockwork. Chair Kevin Snedden welcomed everyone, including the four Boards who have joined since last year's meeting: GA, CA, PA, and AZ.

Dale Atkinson, the Federation's legal counsel and an expert in the area of boards and federations, conducted a training session. Susan Beam, my fellow Board member from NC and treasurer of the FSMTB, was pleased to report that the Federation is much stronger financially than ever before, as we head into our 5th year of existence. Indiana and Louisiana were given membership grants, as their state budgets did not allow for the (very reasonable) member dues. The Federation will soon be getting new office space and hiring additional staff.

Sally Hacking, who is an absolute ball of energy, has been hired to work in government relations, her area of expertise for many years. Debra Persinger, the executive director, has worked tirelessly for the Federation since the beginning, and I am sure Sally's presence will be a great help to her. Incidentally, in my report from the AMTA convention in Orlando, I mentioned that Sally had received an award, and I failed to say that it was the AMTA's President's Award. Sally informed me that she had gotten about 50 phone calls wanting to know what award she won, so it looks like she got plenty of mileage out of my omission, anyway! It is well-deserved. Sally also introduced the concept of a model practice act--a template, basically, that states can of course modify as needed--but meant to represent the ideal for enhancing portability of licensure from state to state.

A report and template for the national disciplinary database was unveiled, including a video presentation of how this will work. This is still in the beginning stages, and will definitely require a lot of help from the member states. The burden will be on state boards to update the database regularly and diligently, in order for this massive project to work, but it is a great step forward in safeguarding the public and keeping those people who don't need to be here out of our profession.

Chip Hines, director of the Body of Knowledge Project, gave a report of the status of that initiative. He was pleased to note that an impressive number of comments on the first draft of the document have been received. I've sent in my comments; have you?

Mike Hinkle, fellow North Carolinian (for the moment, anyway, Mike is like a rolling stone!) gave a great report on the World Massage Festival. The 2010 Festival will be held in Berea, KY. Yours truly will be there teaching ethics and marketing. There will also be the annual inductions into the Massage Therapy Hall of Fame, bluegrass music on the town square, cheap accommodations and meals available at the college, and a very impressive lineup of teachers and classes for continuing education. Scott Miller gave a wonderful video presentation on Social Networking.

The state delegates shared so much valuable information with each other, and time was set aside for a question and answer period, with Debra Persinger moderating. This is the true beauty of the Federation: representatives from all states coming together to collaborate and share ideas to address common problems and issues.

It was reported that the NCBTMB had interfered in four states during the past year, issuing challenges in FL, PA, IA, and OR. I was personally present at the meeting of the FL Board during which that lawsuit was settled, and reported on that in a previous blog. Patty Glenn, the immediate past chair of the FSMTB and an OR Board member, in fact did not come to Nashville, and sent her regretful decision to resign from the FSMTB Board in order to focus on the present problems in OR. Craig McMillin, who is an attorney and the current public member of the OR Board, was present and is an interesting and colorful character who's almost as opinionated as I am! I enjoyed talking to him.

The delegates and Board members are a great bunch of dedicated people. I spent the weekend sitting next to Kathleen Doyle, the delegate from New York--and incidentally, I'm thrilled that New York has joined us, in light of the fact that their extremely high standards put a lot of states to shame--and also time visiting with friends and family who live in Nashville. Champ accompanied me for the weekend and we had breakfast with Connie Shanks-Knight from Mississippi, who is just a wonderful lady and dedicated member.

I had a bittersweet moment this weekend when I was asked by a member of the nominating committee if I would be willing to serve on the Federation Board of Directors. I would have loved to say yes, but I felt that it would detract from my ability to appear as my usual fair self on this blog! In my ideal massage world, all the players get together and play nice! And most of them do...I've been unabashed in my admiration for the Federation, but I felt that it might appear too partial for me to write about them if I was on their Board, so I regretfully declined. I have caught a little flak in the past because I am a member of the North Carolina Board and I'm out here expressing myself, but that is only one small part of who I am; I do not express opinions of any kind on their behalf, have never done so, and never will.

I have written much about the NCBTMB in the past couple of years, most of it criticism. I would in fact like nothing better than for the NCBTMB to regain the respect and confidence of the entire massage community, and to come to peaceful co-existence with the Federation and all the rest. They have not been welcomed to the Federation's meetings, due to their campaign against the MBLEx and their interference in the above-mentioned member board's governance, and their antagonistic referral to ABMP as "just an insurance company", as well as their reaction to AMTA's and ABMP's endorsements of the MBLEx as the path to licensure. Paul Lindamood, CEO of the NCBTMB, has stated to me personally that he and the NCBTMB Board of Directors support the Federation, and expressed a wish that the two entities can be able to work together in the future. It appears that the ball is now in the Federation's court, and it will be up to their Board of Directors of whether or not to dialogue with the NCBTMB. The Federation, as well as the AMTA and ABMP, have always expressed that they recognize national certification as a cornerstone of the profession. They are not trying to make certification, or the NCBTMB, disappear from the planet. I think there is a place for everyone. Friendly competition is a great thing, but it does not serve us to have serious rifts of this sort going on. I hope that a reconciliation can be reached.

The Federation meetings that I have attended in the past two years have been models of what cooperation and collaboration are all about. If your state has not yet joined the Federation, I urge you, as a massage therapist, to contact your state's board members and encourage them to join. If you're a state board member yourself, put it on the agenda for your next meeting. Portability of licensure is just one issue that the Federation is working on. Your state board could not make a better investment than joining.

This is my only term as North Carolina's delegate, but I do expect to continue to attend future meetings as an observer, as I have in the past, and to support the Federation in whatever way I can. I believe it is a wonderful organization, and to see all these Boards come together in the spirit of helping each other is just a beautiful sight to see. May they live long and prosper.

Peace & Prosperity,

Laura Allen

Disclaimer: The opinions on this blog are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the opinions of any other person or entity who may host or repost this blog.

Comment

You need to be a member of massage and bodywork professionals to add comments!

Join massage and bodywork professionals

Comment by Keith Eric Grant on October 25, 2009 at 2:26pm: I'd mentioned above that I had gleaned publicly available data on massage malpractice actions from the National Practitioners Data Bank (NPDB). I updated my extraction of massage data today to reflect the latest public data file going through June 2009. This is a facility that state boards and regulatory agencies could be utilizing and adding to.

Comment by Kimberly Rogers on October 13, 2009 at 12:01pm: Thanks for letting us know what happened at the meeting, Laura. I am very glad that FSMTB is in existence. And I'm very glad that I mentioned the MBLEx to coalition members seeking licensure for WI MT's. At the time (several years ago), they had no idea that there was an option for testing other than NCBTMB. I don't understand why NCBTMB can't find a happy medium to co-exist with FSMTB. Most of the states that are going to licensure are adopting both tests. I suggested the option, as one who was forced to take the national certification exam, to make the playing field more even. And to make my national certification credential mean something.

Hopefully someday, NCBTMB will "get it."

Comment by Keith Eric Grant on October 13, 2009 at 11:24am: To add a bit to Cliff's comment on funding. Funding an organization of state boards and getting state agency representatives to meetings is one of the challenges that has to be overcome. The FSMTB was basically founded on the model used for the National Council of State Nursing Boards, which was among several board associations consulted. As with the nursing council's NCLEX, The proceeds from the provision of a test (MBLEx) provide the funds for the federation's operations and meetings as well as providing a licensing exam specifically designed to meet the needs of state regulation and under the review and control of the state agencies (who hold the rights and responsibilities to regulate for the public benefit). This also satisfies the requirements of state immunity from anti-trust that 1) regulation satisfy a clearly defined state policy and 2) the state is active in the oversight, review, and decision making on prerequisites and requirements that restrict commerce, including right to practice. The member fees charged to the various states prepay travel expenses to attend the meetings, so that state fund travel freezes (which are all too common) don't impact the ability of the federation to meet and confer. The long term benefit is that the state boards and agencies gain the ability to meet face to face and discuss issues such a portability and training outcomes (hopefully). The members of the FSMTB, by the way, are not individuals, but the regulatory boards and agencies of the various states.

In passing, it's also worth mentioning that another resource that the FSMTB has drawn upon for knowledge and advice is the Federation of Associations of Regulatory Boards (FARB). Dale Atkinson (attorney), whom Laura mentioned in her report, has worked actively with FARB and been used by the FSMTB since its foundation. Along with CLEAR, FARB adds more on the general practices, accountability, and broad experience in the regulatory arena. I've long felt that such connections, were among the reasons that it's a positive move as well as a logical one to place licensing competence assessment in the hands of the FSMTB. There are simply more threads of accountability and advice on proper practices than were in place before, a sign of a maturing profession.

Comment by Cliff Korn on October 12, 2009 at 7:50pm: Thanks for the report, Laura. I was pleased to hear that Kathleen Doyle from NY was involved. She was one of us "good guys" who realized the necessity of a massage board organization and tried to keep FSMTB's precursor organization going - the National Alliance of State Massage Therapy Boards. It unfortunately died an untimely death due to lack of funding. I hope the MBLEx solves that problem for the FSMTB.

Comment by Laura Allen on October 12, 2009 at 1:15pm: The FSMTB has an annual meeting, the date of which is posted on their website. www.fsmtb.org Next year's date should be posted soon.

Comment by Darcy Neibaur on October 12, 2009 at 12:19pm: Thank you Laura for such and in depth report. So how does one find out about these meetings?

Comment by Laura Allen on October 12, 2009 at 10:50am: Thank you, Keith. For those who aren't in the know, Keith has been blogging about the politics of massage for many years before I started, and you can check out his website at www.ramblemuse.com

Comment by Keith Eric Grant on October 12, 2009 at 10:33am: Laura, forgot (at least) one thing in my prior comment. This time on the issue of a disciplinary data-bank. It often seems ignored that there is an existing National Practitioner Data Bank on health care practitioners that, if I remember correctly, has included fields for massage therapy since 1999. It may not be necessary to reinvent the wheel, but simply to promote more active use and provide some review of the accuracy of entries. I haven't updated what's in the publicly available information lately, but did put together what was in there on massage therapy actions a while back.

Comment by Keith Eric Grant on October 12, 2009 at 10:12am: Hi Laura. Thanks for a good report on ongoing FSMTB activities. As a side note, New York was an active participant in both of the 2005 FSMTB organizational meetings. At that point, their delegate noted that their ongoing interest depended on the FSMTB creating their own licensing exam, which has since occurred with the MBLEx. So, it comes as no surprise to me they are still involved. Hopefully, many of the discrepancies in future regulation can be mitigated by moving discussions from required hours to that of outcomes of training (KSA's) that are of public benefit.We have for far too long been requirements oriented instead of competency oriented. It is a lot easier to discuss whether or not particular knowledge or skill is of benefit to being able to competently perform well-defined tasks than it is to talk about hours as "standards" (they are not standards, merely requirements, in that they don't have measurable specific outcomes).

A notable difference between the state representatives on the FSMTB board and the NCBTMB is that the former all have training in and experience with the regulatory venue. Thus they hopefully always maintain the perspective that they serve the public benefit and not vice versa, an area in which I believe the NCBTMB wandered far off the path for a competence assessment agency. It was also impressive to me that in the span between May and late September of 2005, the interim FSMTB board had both connected with similar board alliances and had participated in a meeting of the Council on Licensure, Enforcement, and Regulation (CLEAR). CLEAR is a major clearing house and discussion format for both implementation and legal issues (and limitations) on state regulation. They also maintain proceedings of past conferences online as well as other white-papers and material. I gained much about potential anti-trust issues and on the purpose of licensing exams via reading material on the CLEAR website. They also have an excellent little booklet on questions that state legislators should ask about occupational regulation. In was in part the material on the CLEAR website that led to my looking up specific court cases relating to anti-trust, requiring membership in private organizations, and agenda-based use of required fees (i.e. not for the provision of a competence assessment exam)..

As a final note, I am greatly heartened to see you and others taking up the challenge of providing a critical review and oversight of activities in the world of massage regulation and competence assessment. Much of what has occurred in the trade publications in the past has not critically weighed issues but been little more than cheer-leading and reprinting of press releases. Accountability depends on those willing to hold feet to the fire when necessary and express kudos when earned and warranted. I, for one, appreciate those who take on this task.