Massachusetts

Dear Massachusetts ABMP Member: Last Friday, I attended a Public Hearing in Boston held by the Massachusetts Board of Registration of Massage Therapy, regarding the board’s proposed regulations. I wanted to report on that meeting and encourage you to consider submitting comments to the board regarding the proposed regulations. I was one of only a handful of speakers — less than a dozen in total. The topics raised by the speakers included the confusion surrounding the “transition period” and lack of coordination with local Boards of Public Health, the fee structure, as well as some concern expressed by the Asian Bodywork community regarding use of certain terms. I spoke on behalf of ABMP regarding one issue in particular — the board’s interest in increasing the educational hours required for licensure. The current proposed regulations call for the required education hours to increase effective 2010 to 650 hours. ABMP does not support this recommendation. I was fortunate enough to participate in the coalition that helped draft the licensing law, and at no time did the participants express a concern about the 500-hour education requirement being insufficient. In addition, the coalition did not intend for the board to have the authority to change the requirements to practice; I know this because ABMP would not have supported the licensing effort if that were the case. We do not feel that the educational requirements to practice should be decided by a board of 7 people (in the current case, only 5 – two positions have yet to be filled). This is not a typical circumstance; in nearly every state that licenses massage therapy, any requirements to practice are set in statute and must be changed through the legislature. Our reason for not supporting the proposed increase in hours is as follows: Licenses are just now being issued to massage therapists, and primarily under the grandfathering clause. The “permanent” educational requirement of completion of a 500-hour program is yet to be enforced, and will not be until the grandfathering requirement expires in May. Given that, how can anyone determine that the 500-hour requirement is insufficient? There is no research that establishes that increased education hours ensure public safety or practitioner prosperity. What we do know is that longer programs cost the student more money to attend. Unfortunately, it appears the board is injecting its bias and not making a decision based on any evidence that the educational requirement set in statute is insufficient. We believe the board is overstepping its authority. An additional public hearing will be held this Friday, February 8, at 10:00 am at the State Office Building, 436 Dwight Street, Springfield, MA, 01103. Anyone wishing to make a statement can do so in person at the hearing, or can submit written comments. Written comments may be mailed to the Board of Registration of Massage Therapy, 239 Causeway Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02114, Attention R. Ann Constable, Executive Director or e-mailed to Ann.Constable@state.ma.us. Comments need to be submitted by February 14. We encourage you to express any concerns with the regulation you may have. Here is a link to my testimony given at the public hearing, as well as a link to the Board of Registration of Massage Therapy’s website. Warm regards, Les Sweeney ABMP President