California Alliance of
Massage & Bodywork Schools

Update June 7, 2005

SB 412 passed through the State Senate on June 1, 2005 and is now in the Assembly for consideration. According to the Assembly schedule, it has to go through Assembly committees and be voted on in the Assembly by September 9. It could be signed by Oct. 9 and it could be law by January 1. However, the author of the bill, Senator Figueroa, is going to introduce some changes in the language of the bill, changes that were discussed at a meeting attended by Teresa Nead, Bob Benson and others, and that could possibly delay passage of the bill.

Bill Gage, chief consultant for the Business, Professions and Economic Development committee, is working on all the suggestions from that meeting, as well as feedback from non-massage groups like the Polarity Assocation, Trager, Reflexology and others. He is working on incorporating into SB 412 some of the elements such as grandfathering which were in the previous bill (AB 1388).

This is a time-consuming task, and the legislature has other priorities at the moment, such as the budget, so there is a possibility that the bill may become a two -year bill. The legislature, in particular the Joint committee on business and professions, rejected a reasonably well-thought-out bill (AB 1388) which was developed out of two years of negotiation among massage professionals, and instead has turned to a different model of regulations, based on oversight by a private non-profit organization which would report to the State government. SB 412 is a title act, which means it protects certain professional titles, but doesn't regulate the practice of massage. Some of the concerns about this bill relate to the lack of grandfathering, the structure, scope and duties of the proposed new massage organization, which organization would be chosen by the state, and whether the bill should remain a title act or should change to a practice act. Some parties (such as CAPPS) want the minimum education requirement to be 500 hours, rather than having a two tier system with a lower tier of 250 hours. There is also concern about how cities would react to the bill if it becomes law: would they enact even stricter requirements for those massage therapists who choose not to become state certified? Another concern has to do with testing requirements as the bill makes room for the new massage organization to approve tests by various organizations.

What should school owners and managers do now? First of all, contact your own Assembly representative and schedule a meeting with him/her to discuss the bill and share your concerns. Also, encourage all of your students and graduates as well as staff and clients to write letters to their Assembly representatives about SB 412. It is useful to write some model letters that students can sign and mail, or use to develop their own letters.

Keep track of the bill's progress by checking daily on the Senate website. Even though the bill is now in the Assembly, it is still called SB 412. Go to the Senate website and click on the link that says "Legislation." Enter the bill number (SB 412) in the search field and you will be taken to the bill information.

When the bill's language changes, as it surely will, be sure to write more letters about the bill to your Assembly representative, stating your concerns about the bill, and whether or not you support it.

Update February 23, 2005

The massage licensing bill was not introduced to the California legislature by 5:00 p.m. yesterday, and an email from AMTA-CA legislative chair Beverly May today confirmed that the bill is on hold. What this means for the future of the bill is unclear. According to the Assembly Chief Clerk's office, unless the legislature allows the bill to be introduced after the deadline, there won't be another opportunity until January, 2006.

However, five other bills relating to massage have been introduced. Three of them relate to Oriental massage performed by acupuncturists, one bill relates to the right of cities to deny licenses to persons convicted of certain felonies, and one bill relates to insurance coverage for lymphedema disease. See below for information on how to access the bills online.

Update February 18, 2005

There are three new bills relating to massage:
1.AB 213
Subject: Health care coverage for lymphedema. Authored by: Liu
2.AB 665 Subject: Business of massage. Authored by: Salinas
3.SB 356 Subject: Acupuncture. Authored by: Alarcon

To read these bills (they are all very short), go to the Senate website and click on the link to "Legislation." On the legislation search page, select:

  • Session: Current
  • House: Both
  • Keywords: massage,
  • click on "search."

This will bring up links to all three bills so that you can read them.

The deadline for submitting bills to the California Legislature has been extended to Tuesday, February 22, 2005 at 5:00 p.m. because the Legislative Counsel has been unable to process all the submitted bills, including the massage licensing one. It is possible that other bills may be introduced by then.

AB 665 Introduced by Assembly member Salinas

This bill gives cities the right to deny massage licenses to anyone who is convicted of certain crimes including those relating to drugs and also assault and battery.

SB 356 Introduced By Senator Alarcon

This very short bill states the following:
"Existing law authorizes the holder of an acupuncturist's license to engage in the practice of acupuncture and various other forms of treatment, including oriental massage. Existing law specifies that the act does not prohibit a person who is not a licensed acupuncturist or licensed healing arts practitioner from performing oriental massage."

"This bill would define oriental massage for purposes of the Acupuncture Licensure Act."

Send questions to Senator Richard Alarcon at Senator.Alarcon@sen.ca.gov

AB 213 Health care coverage for lymphedema Introduced by Assembly Member Liu.

This bill requires insurance to cover treatment for lymphedema disease. 1367.666 (d), and 10123.175(d) both say that "The MLD shall be performed by a therapist who is trained and certified in the specialized treatment of lymphedema from a recognized training program with a minimum of 135 hours."

Comment: Although this bill seems to be very positive, requiring health care coverage for the treatment of lymphedema disease, the reference to "recognized training program" twice in the bill, referring to training in lymph drainage massage, is of concern because this is not defined. Recognized by whom? By what agency? Does it include recognition by the BPPVE? Or, does it refer to organizations such as the National Lymphedema Network which is specifically mentioned in the bill? What would the effect of this bill be on schools that offer training in lymph drainage massage? Contact Assembly Member Carol Liu at: Assemblymember.Liu@assembly.ca.gov.

AMTA-CA Draft Legislation

Beverly May of AMTA-CA has shared with us their draft massage bill; click here to read the draft in PDF format.

This is only a draft, and will likely be changed. Please read it carefully, and send any comments you may have to Teresa Nead or Ramona Moody. We would like to compile everyone's comments, and be ready to share them with the legislators when/if the bill is actually introduced.

This current version contains all the key issues that CAMBS and others have fought for over the last two years. However, it is only a draft and can change dramatically as it progresses through the Legislative Counsel's office and then through both houses of the State legislature. Remember that "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Whether you support or oppose state licensing, you need to stay tuned to the process and be willing to speak up so the legislators know how you really feel.

The draft has to be reviewed by the Legislative Counsel for the state legislature, then has to be introduced to the Assembly or Senate by February 18. It has to go through various committees in the house of origin and be voted on by May 27, 2005. Another factor is the Sunrise Hearing on January 6, 2005. That committee may not give their decision until as late as April, 2005, and it is unknown how that will affect the outcome.

Report on Sunrise Hearing in Sacramento, January 6, 2005

A hearing before the combined Senate and Assembly Business and Professions committees was held in Sacramento last week on January 6, 2004. The purpose of the meeting was to hear from members of the profession as to whether or not massage should be regulated by the State.

CAMBS's intent going into the January 6 Hearing was to "take off the rose colored glasses" and examine licensure for its true potential risks and benefits to the profession. Ramona Moody and Teresa Nead testified on behalf of CAMBS and the massage profession. Keith Grant, Judith McKinnon and James Mally testified on behalf of the massage profession. Senator Liz Figueroa requested that those testifying to keep comments focused on the issue of local ordinances vs. state licensure. As well as discussing the risks and benefits of licensing, CAMBS reminded those present of the key issues involved in licensing that have arisen over the last two years, including the number of hours required for licensing, the duties of the massage board, testing, regulation of schools, pre-emption of local licensing, the cost of licensing, and grandfathering.

The full text of Teresa Nead's comments and Ramona Moody's comments can be found at the following links:
Teresa Nead
Ramona Moody
Questions Legislators Should Ask

CAMBS reminded therapists that local business licensure and local zoning would still be required even if state licensing is implemented. State licensure would reduce the number of times a massage therapist has to undergo fingerprinting, background searches, and health exams, but it would not negate the need for a local business license in every city or county in which the therapist operates a business.

CAMBS demonstrated the breakdown of massage organization membership in California, with a chart showing the committee the importance of CAMBS involvement in any future bill. It is important to know that the organization pushing legislation (the AMTA) has fewer members in California than the ABMP or IMA.

Keith Grant focused his comments on his recent paper coauthored with Jeff Forman, "Status and Trends in California Massage Education" while Judith McKinnon reminded the committee that the claims of the AMTA were not indicative of the greater profession in California. James Mally reminded the committee that massage is not brain surgery and there are many great therapists across this state that started their careers with only 100 hours of education. Keith's comments and article are available at these links:
Sunrise Hearing
Massage Training Trends

AMTA focused primarily on onerous local ordinances and zoning requirements that impact some massage therapists across the state. Some therapists that deal with difficult requirements testified to the challenges they face in their cities.

A very good article about what has happened to the funds of many Boards in the Department of Consumer affairs can be found at the link below. This article also describes the purpose of Boards, and how their duties are accomplished. Be sure to read this article - it is very enlightening about the possible outcomes of setting up a Massage Board.
Crosscut Issues

Discussing the meeting afterwards, CAMBS members who were present all agreed that the AMTA had not really made the case for licensing, presenting an emotional appeal rather than detailing the benefits of massage licensing, as they see them, and backing up their presentation with facts and documentation, as CAMBS did. ABMP President Bob Benson gave a good presentation full of factual information and support for his position, but it was somewhat lost in the middle of AMTA's emotional appeals to the committee. So the outcome is inconclusive and it remains to be seen what decision the committee will make.

Respectfully submitted,
Ramona Moody
CAMBS Editor

Update on State Licensing

An informational hearing in front of the California Senate Business and Professions Committee will be held in Sacramento on January 6, 2005. (It was formerly scheduled for December 9, 2004.) The meeting will last about 90 minutes which does not leave much time for anyone to speak before the committee. Therefore, it is important for all massage school owners and managers, along with their students, graduates, local therapists, and school staff to write to the Senate B&P committee to give their views on state licensing before January. For a list of key issues that have developed in the last two years of discussion, click here. For a list of the names and addresses of Senate B&P Committee members, click here

CAMBS Position Statement on State Licensing July 2004

Since AB 1388 was tabled in January, members of CAMBS have continued to discuss massage licensing concepts, hoping to build on the basis laid by the drafting committee late last year. In keeping with AMTA's request for concepts and language to help the legislative process along, and in the spirit of cooperation with the multifaceted touch therapy community in California, the California Alliance of Massage and Bodywork Schools (CAMBS) now proposes a new version of AB 1388.

A copy of this proposal has been sent to Beverly May, as the chairperson for the AMTA-CA legislative committee, and also to all the parties that have participated in this process so far. Our purpose is to share with the entire community a bill we feel will benefit the broad and multifaceted massage community as well as the consumer in California. This is a well-thought-out alternative that uses the current bill as a foundation.

So that the concepts and language we have worked out can be seen in the context of the full bill, and for ease of reading and cohesiveness a copy of the entire massage bill can be seen by clicking here.

Key Issues

    Although we understand the nature of the legislative process will require continued negotiation, CAMBS stands firm on the following points:
  • Pre-emption of local massage licensing ordinances.
  • A 250-hour tier with sufficient safeguards to assure that a student will have completed a balance core curriculum, no restrictions on scope of practice, and no requirement for supervision. This tier must be permanent, not something that can be phased out in a few years.
  • Examination done within the school.
  • Massage Board has no control over curriculum in massage schools, either directly or indirectly.
  • Practitioner hours (250) must be acquired at an Approved, not a Registered school.
  • Reasonable licensing fees and other associated costs.
  • Testing such as the National Certification Exam (NCE) only as an option, not a requirement
Return to top of page.

State Licensing for Massage in California

After a few months respite, the movement toward state licensing for massage therapists in California is heating up again. The ABMP has both hired a lobbyist and written their own Sunrise Questionnaire Response to justify the need and shape of licensing to the state. The AMTA-CA has hired a new lobbyist and is holding an organizational meeting on May 20 in Emeryville. Whether for or against state licensing, every massage therapist should become involved in this process, as it will affect everyone's future in the profession. If all massage professionals speak up and take a stand, the outcome is more likely to represent what the profession as a whole actually wants. If massage therapists don't participate in directing the future of their own profession, it will be left to a few to shape the profession in line with their own preferences.

CAMBS members last year had an extremely potent effect on AB 1388, which was introduced to create state level massage licensing. Because of CAMBS, an unfair and poorly written bill was defeated. CAMBS participated in a coalition which created a much better bill representing the concerns of many different groups in the profession.

The bill that the coalition developed may or may not be used by the AMTA-CA in their renewed bid for state licensing. Massage therapists must be ready to read each new version of the bill and act on it immediately, giving the legislators their opinions on the bill. The best way to be ready to act is to be sure CAMBS has your email address, as we send out instant updates as soon as we hear any news.

Our goal is to find out if the profession really wants licensing - as the AMTA and ABMP claim - and if so to help shape a bill that is fair and reasonable for all. CAMBS wants as much participation as possible from as many therapists as possible, and this can be done most effectively through the schools, as was proven last year. Make sure we have your up to date contact information so we can help you stay informed.

AB 1807 - 2004 Education Reform Act

Assembly Bill 1807 was introduced in January, 2004. The purpose of the bill is to revise the Education Reform Act with regard to the BPPVE. The bill contains several changes that will impact our schools. The most significant change is that the bill deletes the provisions exempting massage and body arts schools from the Maxine Waters Act. This would mean that massage schools would have to comply with Maxine Waters requirements regarding completion and placement.

Also the bill changes and improves the required refund policy, eliminates the requirement for teacher's certificates of authorization, including a provision that the Bureau will create regulations for teachers, and eliminates most forms of registered institutions. The bill would create a new fund, the Student Protection Fund, to pay for "teach-outs" when schools close. All schools would be required to pay into the fund, the fee would be 0.0005 times the annual gross income.

To read the entired text of AB 1807, go to the Assembly website and click on the link for Legislation. Enter "1807" into the search criteria and it will lead you to the page for the bill. Carol Liu is the author of the bill. According to her office, there will be a meeting on March 3, 2004 to discuss amendments to the bill. School owners should immediately contact her office to voice their concerns about AB 1807. Contact her representative:

    Bruce Hamlett
  • Chief Consultant
  • Assembly Higher Education Committee
  • 916-319-3454
  • Bruce.Hamlett@asm.ca.gov

Update on AB 1807

CAMBS representatives Teresa Nead, Judith McKinnon and James Malley attended a meeting in Sacramento on March 3, 2004, along with Bruce Hamlett, Chief Consultant of the Assembly Higher Education Committee, and the president of CAPPS and other interested persons, to discuss the impact of the proposed legislation. A more detailed report will be included in the next CAMBS newsletters, however, the important fact is that the bill was created and proposed by CAPPS, reflecting the needs and point of view of their members who are mostly large, accredited schools. The only organization present at the meeting to represent the needs of small and unaccredited schools was CAMBS. Teresa and the other CAMBS members presented a list of items about which we are concerned, particularly the elimination of the exemption of massage and fine arts schools from the Maxine Waters Act. Although the intention of CAPPS, according to its president, is to create a level playing ground, there is in fact no level playing ground for small schools. Those attending, especially those representing the Assembly committee, were supportive of our view. There will be another meeting held in April for further discussion. In the meantime, school owners should familiarize themselves with the bill and write letters to Bruce Hamlett and the members of the committee.

CAMBS Hours Analysis

In 1998 the Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education (BPPVE) formed a task force in an effort to create a minimum curriculum standard for massage schools. The question the task force grappled with was, "how much training, and in what subjects, is necessary to turn out graduates that are competent in one modality, safe (no harm to public or selves), and marketable (able to get a job.) Although the task force never finished its project, CAMBS has been working on it since then. At almost every CAMBS meeting, school owners and managers have discussed and outlined the topics that at a minimum should be taught to every massage student. Currently CAMBS is trying to determine the length of time it takes to cover this specific material in a basic massage course. Such a content-based curriculum would be based on needs of student and school, rather than creating an artificial curriculum in an attempt to fill up the number of hours required by a round-number established before content and needs were analyzed. More details on these efforts are available in our library.

 

© California Alliance of Massage & Bodywork Schools

Websmithing by Keith Eric Grant — The RamblemuseSM
Last modified — 09 December 2005