Comments needed -- deadline TODAY! ****************************** The following is the update on the FSMTB licensing issue from the AOBTA for AOBTA members -- but this affects ALL of us. **************************************************************** Here’s what happened earlier this summer: The Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards (FSMTB) had created the first draft of a “Model Practice Act” which it intends to use to require all Asian Bodywork Therapists across the country to be licensed as Massage Therapists in order to practice. If successful, the Model Practice Act will regulate and license the ABT profession, but will not recognize your ABT education and training – meaning that ABT professionals will also need to be educated as Massage Therapists in order to legally practice. Thank You!! AOBTA Members commented on the first draft in great numbers. That show of unity resulted in the FSMTB drafting a 2nd version of the MPA! Heres whats happening now: FSMTB responded to the feedback during the 1st Public Comment Period by drafting a 2nd version of the MPA. However, this second draft does not correct the failings of the first draft and still intends to have Asian Bodywork Therapists trained and licensed as Massage Therapists. Unfortunately, FSMTB provided us with less than 2 weeks to respond to the newest draft of the MPA! You have until August 15th to tell FSMTB what you think about their intentions to unfairly discrimination against you and your profession! Here’s what you can do: Step 1: Make a commitment to take some time and respond to this threat. This requires a response from each and every member of the ABT professional community. If you don’t respond on your own behalf – who will?! Step 2: Read the letter (below) from the AOBTA leadership regarding its assessment of the Model Practice Act. Step 3: Click on these links to read the Model Practice Act and to access the Online Comment Form. Step 4: Complete the Online Comment Form by the deadline of August 15th. Please offer your own responses to the MPA or if you are in agreement with the AOBTA leadership’s assessment of the Model Practice Act (as presented further below in this announcement), you can complete the Comment Form by copying and pasting the following pre-formatted comment into the comment window of the Online Comment Form (its a lot of information and weve tried to make it as easy as possible for you to respond): This time, the Online Comment Form provides only one window for leaving a comment. You can copy all the following sections (Section 101 - Section 404) and paste them all into that one window. Please feel free to add additional comments if you wish. Section 101. Title of Act A sound rationale for titling the MPA should be based on how the Massage Therapy profession officially defines itself and not on the misperceptions of the consumer public, the arguable perspectives of historical usage, the variations of consumer recognition, or the small educational core shared by the various Therapeutic Bodywork professions. In this second draft, FSMTB continues to willfully ignore the existence of separately established professions that fall within the Therapeutic Bodywork umbrella (Massage Therapy being one of those professions) and pursues its goals by mislabeling these various professions as “practices”, “approaches”, and “methods” of the single profession of Massage Therapy. If the MPA is to represent the single profession of Massage Therapy, then it must only include the scope of practice, terminology, and educational standards that are relevant to the specific profession of Massage Therapy. Although the various Therapeutic Bodywork professions share a significant amount of core curriculum, and many Massage Therapy students study specific techniques or theories of the other professions, the Massage Therapy educational standards do not include full and complete professional entry-level training in any of those other professions and the Massage Therapy Scope of Practice does not suggest that Massage Therapists are qualified to practice the other professions. The partial inclusion of another professions techniques and theories in a Massage Therapy students education does not qualify them to practice that additional profession - it simply provides them with the chance to incorporate some of those techniques and theories into their Massage Therapy practice. Nor should the other professions be required to be defined or licensed as Massage Therapy because some of their techniques or theories might be incorporated into Massage Therapy training and practice. If the FSMTB wishes to create an MPA that will license a variety of Therapeutic Bodywork professions, then it must work with those professions to create a structure for the MPA that is inclusive and respectful of those various professions. That has clearly not happened in the development of the MPA. There are current examples of state boards that are inclusive and refer to their board as the “Bodywork Therapies Board”. It is a structure that already exists and can be even more refined with cooperation among the various professions. To be clear, the public is not being served or made any safer when there is intentional blurring of the difference between various professions. It is respectfully requested that the FSMTB Board consider working with the professional organizations of the various established Therapeutic Bodywork professions to create a model that is able to represent those professions in a manner that will genuinely serve the public safety. Section 103. Definitions It is an inappropriate intention of this MPA draft to suggest that the educational requirements recommended by ELAP in some way justify labeling the other Therapeutic Bodywork professions as Massage Therapy. While ELAP acknowledges and allows for the inclusion of the techniques and/or theories of another profession to be taught in a Massage Therapy education, it does not provide for a complete curriculum of entry level professional training for any profession other than Massage Therapy. Training in some of the techniques and theories of another profession is not inappropriate and can enrich a Massage Therapy practice - but it must be understood that they are incorporating some of the techniques and/or theories of another profession into their Massage Therapy practice and are not qualified to actually practice that additional profession, claim to practice that profession, or refer to themselves as practitioners of that profession. Also, by pointing to the accredited programs that COMTA has developed for other non-Massage Therapy professions as a source of educational standards for Massage Therapy licensing, the MPA is again suggesting those professional training programs are Massage Therapy. If those programs are going to be recommended for inclusion in the MPA, then FSMTB must secure the cooperation of the various professions to structure a version of the MPA that respectfully represents those additional professions. The paragraph states “...and is accredited by an accrediting body recognized by the U.S. Dept. of Ed.” Perhaps that should be an “or”. The Accrediting process costs in excess to $40K and there are many schools that cannot afford to do that. It is a choice, not a requirement. By only using the term Massage Therapy Education - and with the rationale listing “Massage Theory and Principles” and “Massage Professional Practices” - it could very easily be construed that Massage Therapy training must be taken, regardless of the educational standards established by the other Therapeutic Bodywork professions. Section 104. Practice of Massage Therapy “The defined scope of practice takes into consideration the approaches, services and activities of current and evolving practice.” Please add to the end of the sentence “...of Massage Therapy.” A profession’s “Scope of Practice” is by definition a very detailed document that specifically describes what does or doesn’t get included in the profession’s scope of practice. It is not appropriate for the purposes of this MPA to manipulate the Massage Therapy Scope of Practice in a way so that “The definition uses broad descriptions reflecting practice rather than identifying therapeutic approaches by name“ or “This broad language recognizes the authority of the Board to interpret the services and activities defined in the scope…”. This appears to indicate that FSMTB wishes to assign to the State Boards the responsibility for defining the Massage Therapy Scope of Practice instead of the Scope being defined by the profession itself. Section 106. Title Protection and Protected Terms If the MPA does not acknowledge the various Therapeutic Bodywork professions in it’s title,educational requirements, or throughout the content of the document, then it can only restrict the use of the terms Massage Therapist, Massage Therapy, and LMT. We respectfully do not refer to ourselves as Massage Therapists, we ask for the same respect and recognition. Section 202. Board Composition and Qualifications Following this proposed act, if all Therapeutic Bodywork professions are to be regulated as Massage Therapy, then state Massage Therapy boards would need to have professional members of the many Therapeutic Bodywork professions to fairly regulate the diverse number of professions that would be included under this kind of Massage Therapy law. There is nothing written in the Model Practice Act to assure proper representation of the professions that are not Massage Therapy that would be regulated. Without diverse representation on state regulatory boards, people uninformed about the profession’s educational requirements, professional standards, and scope of practice will unfairly regulate these professions. Section 301. Qualifications for Initial License If the intention is to license all the Therapeutic Bodywork professions, then the educational requirements for each profession, as defined by each profession, must be accepted. There seems to be an obvious conflict of interest to build into the MPA the use of the MBLEx exam when it is a product that financially benefits the FSMTB. Section 404. Unlawful Advertising The MPA cannot regulate against the use of terms that are not defined or have already been defined as the titles of other professions. Only the titles of established professions have been defined (such as Massage Therapy and Asian Bodywork Therapy). Letter from the AOBTA Board of Directors Dear AOBTA Community Member, Once again, AOBTA is being called on to exercise its important responsibility to represent and protect the interests of Asian Bodywork Therapists and the ABT profession to the public, other professions, and regulatory agencies. As a partner in the Asian Bodywork Therapy profession, it is important for you to be aware of any activity that may possibly discriminate against you as a professional therapeutic bodyworker and may limit your rights to legal practice. Earlier this summer, with the release of the intial draft of the Model Practice Act (MPA), the FSMTB (Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards) received a huge number of responses on their online Comment Form during the public comment period. In response to that feedback, the FSMTB created a 2nd draft of the MPA which they have release for public comment just last week - which allows very little time for providing feedback. You can review this 2nd draft of the Model Practice Act and access the Online Comment Form using the following links: Revised Model Practice Act (MPA) Document | Online Comment Form | fsmtb.org Upon review of the most recent draft of the MPA, the AOBTA leadership has once again identified numerous instances of language, rationale, and position statements that would, in effect, discriminate against the Asian Bodywork Therapy profession and other Therapeutic Bodywork professions. In fact, we have been unable to identify any substantial, positive change in the 2nd draft that makes it any less threatening to the ABT profession than the initial version. Below are a few of the problematic issues with the MPA as it is currently written: The MPA encourages the people writing new Massage Therapy laws and the state regulators who create the rules for Massage Therapy licensing laws, to pass legislation and rules that would also regulate the non-Massage Therapy professions. The language, rationale and positions presented in the MPA are overreaching of the profession of Massage Therapy, and therefore, AOBTA cannot support FSMTB’s Model Practice Act. The MPA was created to give guidance to regulators of the Massage Therapy profession by providing a template that includes model statutory language. This MPA is intended for use in states that do not yet require Massage Therapists to be licensed, and as a replacement for state practice laws already in existence as they come up for review. The long-term goal is to promote standardization and portability of Massage Therapy licensing across the country - and to establish nationally that all therapeutic bodywork professions are nothing but modalities of Massage Therapy. The only therapeutic bodywork profession listed in the title of the MPA is the Massage Therapy profession – and yet the rationale within the MPA promotes the inclusion of all the therapeutic bodywork professions under the single professional title of Massage Therapy. The Massage Therapy profession has defined itself when it created the Massage Therapy Body of Knowledge and the recent ELAP project. FSMTB appears to be willfully ignoring the Massage Therapy profession’s current consensus definition and has presented a fabricated history and alternative definition of Massage Therapy in the MPA to serve as the rationale for promoting licensing that will require the purchase of their product, the MBLEx licensing exam. An explanation accompanying the MPA declares that Massage Therapy is a healthcare profession that needs to be regulated, and that this regulation be inclusive of bodywork approaches to practice. This language indicates that individual state governments should license massage therapists, and that any therapeutic bodywork profession should be regulated as the Massage Therapy profession, with no exceptions or exemptions allowed. The MPA includes “Energetic Systems” that use structured touch within the scope of practice for the Massage Therapy profession. By striving to require all therapeutic bodywork professions to be licensed as Massage Therapy - without accepting the educational requirements, standards, and scope of practices of those various professions - it appears that FSMTB is working towards the systematic elimination of all therapeutic bodywork professions other than Massage Therapy as providers of therapeutic bodywork health and well-being services for the American public. We strongly encourage you to take a look at the newest version of the Model Practice Act, form your own opinion about the information presented in the document, and respond to their public comment forum. WE AGAIN NEED TO PRESENT A UNIFIED VOICE Time is of the essence as you have only until August 15, 2014 to comment Model Practice Act (MPA) Document | Online Comment Form The FSMTB’s Model Practice Act endorses poor public policy and discriminatory practices against multiple Therapeutic Bodywork professions. For clarification, the AOBTA leadership has outlined its primary concerns with specific sections of the Model Practice Act. If your opinion is in keeping with ours, you are welcome to use these “talking points” to guide your public comment by “copying and pasting” each of these points into the corresponding sections within the Online Comment Form. These points are provided in the top section of this announcement (Heres What You Can Do). We encourage you to see the serious “right to practice” implications that this Model Practice Act promotes. It is truly bad public policy and any law or rules that would be created based on it are a misuse of public funds and discriminatory to multiple established professions. AOBTA is always willing to support another Therapeutic Bodywork professions endeavors to establish and regulate itself. AOBTA could support a Massage Therapy Model Practice Act that truly recognizes Massage Therapy as a singular profession unto itself and makes no attempts to regulate the other Therapeutic Bodywork professions. AOBTA could also consider supporting a Therapeutic Bodywork Professions Model Practice Act that would provide licensing for all the interested Therapeutic Bodywork professions in a fair and just manner that is inclusive of each profession’s self-established educational requirements, professional standards, and scope of practice. But AOBTA cannot support FSMTBs Model Practice Act as long as FSMTB is taking the discriminitory position that all the Therapeutic Bodywork professions should be regulated as the single profession of Massage Therapy. If you have any questions regarding the AOBTA leaderships position, please feel free to contact us using the contact information below. Deborah Overholt, AOBTA Legislative Director | [email protected] Wayne Mylin, AOBTA President | [email protected] Members can also join the discussion on the AOBTA Forum by clicking on the following link: Forum Once again, thank you for your timely attention to this situation! The AOBTA Board of Directors
Posted on: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 17:59:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015