|
CAMBS |
|
|
California Alliance of Massage and Bodywork Schools |
October 2003 |
Assembly Bill 1388 was introduced early this year to establish licensure for massage therapists in California. After a landmark outpouring of protest, it has been revised substantially, thanks to the work of a coalition representing massage schools and professional associations. Now there is very little time left for schools to comment on this bill, and it is very important for us to do so. If school owners and their students don't act now, this bill could easily become law, without your input.
Although the revision represents probably the most compromise ever seen as far as massage licensing is concerned, there are still some concerns for school owners, and a wide variety of opinions about the bill. Please read the revised bill itself. You can find it online at the Assembly website. Also read the following editorial comments by three members of CAMBS:
The CAMBS position paper had a powerful effect - shortly after the release of the CAMBS Position Statement, AB1388 was completely rewritten by members of the profession in California who included three school owners, two of whom are CAMBS Members, three representatives from California AMTA, and two representatives from ABMP. As CAMBS's chairperson, I was a member of this group, to insure that the concerns of school owners would be heard.
In the spirit of negotiation, they say that compromise is necessary, however very little actual compromise was necessary during the bulk of our revisions to AB1388. Personal agendas were put aside and the good of the profession was the focus of coalition. The goal of the group was to create a law that would not choke but would rather benefit the profession. With respect to the unique diversity of massage therapy in California the coalition sought to maintain a standard of less restriction within the proposed law rather than more. Each issue of concern was discussed and voted upon. In most cases there was complete agreement among the members of the coalition.
Most of the concerns itemized in the CAMBS Position Statement were addressed with this revision. Some remaining opposition was clarified. After the revisions were made to the bill, we heard from our CAMBS membership expressing new concerns with some of the wording. The tide has changed. Now instead of seeking to kill the bill, professionals are seeking modifications within the bill. While additional changes to AB1388 cannot be made until January, the coalition has taken a proactive stance in regard to changes, continuing to meet and discuss additional revisions.
We will seek to submit the additional changes prior to the sunrise hearing. The Sunrise process does not look at the specifics of the bill; the Assembly uses the Sunrise process to determine whether a bill is necessary. However, the coalition feels it important to let the Business and Professions Committee know that support from the massage community in general will depend on their accepting these newest revisions.
The 100 hour increments, at the front of debate from some in the profession, was created to prevent the student from obtaining 250 hours of education by taking seminars that may be minimal in length, requiring no testing and giving the student no real core of education. At the same time, the coalition did not want to shut out schools with shorter (100+/- hour) programs by requiring that all of the education be taken at one school. However the response from the profession has been directed at the challenges that lie with in the approach. The coalition has since come up with several creative solutions and a vote will be forthcoming.
The second issue at the center of conversation is "Registered" vs. "Approved" schools. Again the coalition understands the concerns of the profession and is seeking to establish a change that will enable both Approved and Registered schools to coexist within a parameter that is reflective of a school's level of approval with the BPPVE. CAMBS is aware that schools may have to make changes in status or program design. Some members have suggested that we seek to work with the BPPVE to streamline school modifications that come as a result of AB1388.
I would like to acknowledge those in the profession, to include all CAMBS members who have worked to shape AB1388 into a bill that reflects the wishes of the massage profession. While opposition to the bill is still an option, we need to be aware that if AB1388 does not pass, those who are pro licensure will start this process all over again. And when that is done, the profession might not be so blessed with people in both political camps that are willing to set aside political and financial agendas and create a bill that responsible and represents the massage therapy profession.
Please email me your concerns and comments.
Both the ABMP and the AMTA have sent out information to their members urging support for licensing and in particular support for AB 1388. While the bill is much improved over its original introduction, we are now about at the point at which I believe the bill should have been before it was introduced. On the one hand, this is the first time a bill has existed with specifics worth talking about. On the other hand, I still have some major objections, both practical and philosophical.
My largest objection on the practical side is the stipulation that education be counted only in increments of 100 hours or greater. This could require schools to have to change the length of their programs, a process requiring approval from the state BPPVE and additional fees. I also don't like the implications of the 100 hour limitation for those who, like I did, accomplish much of their training taking vacation from another job.
Also, after 250 hours, a student should be able to direct their own learning, studying, for example with Whitney Lowe for orthopedic massage or Upledger for Cranial sacral or Lymphatic drainage. Increments from the notable experts in an area don't always come in neat bundles of 100 hours.
Adding the second tier doesn't do anything more about exempting practitioners from local regulation than does the first tier. It also doesn't require that a second tier practitioner have been in prior practice even for a single day. It would elevate someone who was fresh out of the classroom above a practitioner who might have 500 hours of experience. If that's not confusing enough to the consumer, AB 1388 would also remove the consumer information requirements that currently exist under SB 577.
These are correctable flaws rather than being so intrinsic that there's no way around them. I urge all of you, whether for or against AB 1388 to write to your elected representatives, to Christine Kehoe, and to the members of the Business and Professions committee.
For more details, visit my website.
I applaud the efforts of the recent coalition to work together and revise AB 1388 for the good of the profession in California. Debate about massage licensing can be very contentious. Their effort represents the most agreement and compromise I have ever seen among massage therapists on the subject of massage licensing.
Unfortunately, before the massage community at large could comment on the revisions to the bill, Christine Kehoe's office submitted the bill to the Business and Professions committee. Now no changes can be made in the bill until the Committee reviews it in January.
There are still some refinements needed. Keith Grant has commented on some of these areas of concern. I'd like to make sure school owners are aware of another area of concern, which has to do with the difference between registered and approved schools
As currently written, the bill allows for the lower tier education requirement of 250 hours to be taken at registered institutions. As far as consumer protection goes, approved schools are very different from registered institutions. Approved schools must keep specific student records and they must have authorized instructors who meet specific education and experience criteria. Approved schools must demonstrate fiduciary responsibility, having a specific legally required ratio of assets to liabilities and they must have their sites approved, and have site inspections. And finally, approved schools pay thousands of dollars each year to be approved and to operate legally. Registered schools pay $700.00 every three years to maintain registration.
In short, registered institutions have no requirements about the qualifications of their instructors, the quality of their education, the safety of their sites, their fiscal health, or any of the other requirements that approved schools have to follow. Where is the consumer protection in that? Where is the credibility of education?
The coalition continues to meet and work on the bill. I have been assured that they are working on these areas of concern. However, they need support. Individual school owners need to decide where they stand on these issues, and we all need to write letters to everyone involved.
Visit the CAMBS website for more information on the issues.
We are coming down to the wire with AB 1388. Our expectation is that AB 1388 will probably become law unless there is a great deal of opposition. The coalition has been unique in working hard to meet our concerns. However, that isn't enough. If you support what the coalition has done, write letters and encourage your students and graduates to write letters. If you have concerns about any part of the bill, say so now. If you oppose AB 1388, you need to speak up now!
At the CAMBS meeting on November 7, 2004, you will be able to discuss the issues, hear about the current status of the bill, and get handouts with the addresses of elected officials you need to contact and sample letters. Email me at ramonam@earthlink.net for more information about the meeting.
Because of the short time left before the meeting, school directors who have not yet registered for the meeting should contact Birgit Ball Eisner or Ramona Moody immediately.
| Treasurer: Birgit Ball-Eisner (831) 624-1006 or mit@redshift.com |
| Secretary: Ramona Moody French (760) 323-5806 or info@somatherapy.com |
To register for the CAMBS meeting in November, mail a payment of $50.00 per
school (member schools only) or $50.00 per person (non-member schools) to CAMBS
treasurer, Birgit Ball-Eisner at:
Monterey Institute of Touch
27820 Dorris Drive
Carmel, CA 93923.
The meeting is open to massage school owners and directors only. Please tell Birgit how many will be attending, along with their names and titles.
The meeting will be held at Desert Resorts School of Somatherapy, 2100 N. Palm Canyon Dr., Building C, Palm Springs, CA 92262. On Friday the meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. and will end approximately at 5:00 p.m. On Saturday the meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. and end at 1:00 p.m. approximately.
There are many more hotels within a five mile radius of the school. You can find more hotels and information about Palm Springs by logging on to the Palm Springs website at www.palmsprings.com. For information about airports, directions, or other local information contact Somatherapy, Inc. at 800-270-1175
CAMBS is a mutual support group made up of school owners and administrators who have unique legal issues and responsibilities related to students, staff, instructors, community, employers, as well as local city, county and state administrative regulatory agencies.
All of these are good reasons to join CAMBS and attend CAMBS meetings which are held twice a year, in southern and northern California. The upcoming meeting in Palm Springs will be especially important as school owners have only a short time to respond to changes in AB 1388 before it is heard by the Business and Professions committee in January.
CAMBS Board of Directors
Director: Teresa Reynolds Nead — The Body Institute
(916) 791-1951, teresa@bodyinstitute.com
Treasurer: Birgit Ball-Eisner — Monterey Institute of Touch
(831) 624-1006, mit@redshift.com
Secretary: Ramona Moody French — Somatherapy, Inc.
(760) 323-5806, ramona@somatherapy.com
Send letters to the editor to Ramona Moody French at the email address above. Send other correspondence to Teresa Nead at the email address above.
Annual dues: $100.00
Meeting fees:
Send dues and meeting registration to the Treasurer, Birgit Ball Eisner at:
Monterey Institute of Touch
27820 Dorris Drive
Carmel, CA 93923