Category: Legislation of Massage

Posted on

An Interview with Bill Brown, New Executive Director of AMTA

Bill Brown became the new Executive Director of the American Massage Therapy Association on May 17, following the retirement of former ED Shelly Johnson.

Brown has been with the American Massage Therapy Association for 8 years, the past two and a half as Deputy Director. He has a degree in Political Studies from the University of IL and is bringing a lot of experience to the table in association management, and industry and government relations. Prior to joining AMTA as the Director of Industry and Government Relations, he worked in industry relations for the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, as the Director of Government and Regulatory Affairs for the International Interior Design Association, and as the Director of State Government Affairs in the IL Office of Banks and Real Estate. I recently had the opportunity to ask him a few questions about his background, philosophy, and how he sees the organization moving into the future.

1. Tell our audience something about your background, like where you were born and raised, where you went to college…inquiring minds want to know!

 I think this is actually the hardest question, forcing me to talk about myself.  So here it goes.  I was born in Erie, Pennsylvania and moved to the Chicagoland area when I was just a youngster and grew up in Illinois.  My parents were small business owners and worked in a small printing company.  I moved to Springfield, Illinois when I started my career working in state government.  I worked in the legislature, as a regulator and for local government before taking a short break to run my family’s printing company for a couple of years while my father had some health issues.  After we sold the company allowing my father to retire I went into association management.  I began working in government relations setting up new programs for two associations.  When I came to AMTA I really wanted to find a place to grow and be able to utilize my skills — and found much more.  AMTA has provided a welcoming and inclusive atmosphere that I hope everyone can experience some day.

2. When you were job-seeking, what was it about AMTA that jumped out at you that initially made you want to come to work for the organization?

AMTA has a good reputation and organizational stability.  That isn’t always true for associations.  I also saw an opportunity for long term growth with the association, and the potential of having a positive impact.

3. When you earned your degree in political science, were you thinking of getting into politics on a broader scale such as running for public office or working for the government? Or do you think that might be in your path in the future?

I’ve always wanted to make a difference in what I do.  Public policy is important to me, but I really see myself able to make a difference working in an association.

4. If you had to describe AMTA in one word, what would it be, and why?

Not to dodge your question completely, but I want to give you three words – massage therapy profession.  AMTA’s board, its other volunteers and our staff take our mission seriously. We are about serving our members (massage therapists, students, schools and educators) and advancing the profession.  So, AMTA wants to improve opportunities for all massage therapists in the profession.  We see AMTA as working to represent and advance the entire profession, whether it is working with our members, the public, other healthcare providers or employers.

5. As you’re settling into your new position as Executive Director, do you have any immediate pet projects you’d like to implement?

My primary responsibility is to implement the decisions of our board of Directors.  Our board has many ideas to serve our members and advance the profession.  I direct our staff to execute them to the best of our abilities.  That means providing excellent customer service and promoting a sense of inclusion.

6. What do you perceive to be the biggest challenges facing massage therapists today?

Our members tell us what is most challenging to them.  A challenge we hear most often is trying to make a good living as a massage therapist in a tough economy.  The right to practice and public acceptance of the real value of massage therapy and being treated as professionals are also important challenges today.

7. What do you think AMTA is doing to help therapists meet those challenges?

AMTA and our Board of Directors are especially focused on trying to bring new clients to our members.  That’s why we began our multi-year commitment last year to our Consumer Awareness Program.  We are proactively approaching national and local media and the health care community every day to educate them about the benefits of massage therapy for health and the importance of finding a qualified massage therapist. We encourage consumers to look for an AMTA member for their next massage.

We provide a wealth of continuing education, so massage therapists can advance and grow professionally.  Many of our continuing education classes are offered free to our members.  We have an online Job Bank and new student scholarship program that will be both expanding this year.  And, our chapters provide advantages for massage therapists they can’t find anywhere else – networking, support, continuing education, a chance to impact the direction of the association, and a very successful mentoring program. All of these address the challenges in the profession and for massage therapists to be successful.

8. AMTA has been participating in the Leadership Summits with representatives from the other professional organizations since they began. What, if any, value do you think has been the outcome of those meetings?

First and foremost are the collaboration and fostering of relationships and camaraderie among the various massage therapy organizations.  This is vital if we want to make the profession better and more beneficial for everyone.  We each have a better understanding of our respective roles in the approaches to the profession.  And, of course, the Entry Level Analysis Project (ELAP) is a very positive outgrowth of these meetings. The closer we can work together the stronger the profession becomes.

9. As one who is very experienced in government relations, do you plan for AMTA to be more proactive in the individual states on that front, such as lobbying against detrimental legislation?

We will be continuing our board-approved approach to government relations.  There is a lot to do there.  That means supporting our chapters’ work, and understanding the unique characteristics and needs of each state.  We will continue to be proactive on licensing, because our goal is to have fair and consistent licensing in all states that can lead to future portability of massage therapy practice. 

10. Some massage therapists avoid joining any organizations because the perception is that they are all about cliques and politics. What would you say to those people to change their mind and persuade them to join AMTA?

 I believe they will like it.  AMTA is about our members.  We listen to all our members and develop products, programs and services that benefit all of them.  If someone is unsure about joining AMTA, I want them to come check us out.  There are many ways to participate in AMTA and to engage with others in the profession.  Do you want to mentor new massage therapists or do you need a mentor?  Look at AMTA.  Do you want to network with massage therapists and learn from them?  Look at AMTA.  Do you want to see your association actively promoting its members to the public and trying to get you new opportunities for new clients?  Look at AMTA. I believe that if a massage therapist experiences AMTA they will join.

11. Is there anything else you’d like to say to all the massage therapists out there?

Give us a try and I believe you will want to be a part of the family.  I realize there are choices out there but I truly believe in AMTA and our members, and that we are the right choice for massage therapists. I feel the same way about massage therapy.  We want more people to experience massage therapy for themselves because when people that try it, they see the value and what it can do for their health and overall wellness and come back for more.  

 

Posted on

Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards: All Talk and No Action?

I hear through the grapevine that the Nevada State Board of Massage Therapy has voted to terminate their agency’s membership in the Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards. Why the big thumbs down? The main reason was a failure to deliver on the many promises FSMTB has made to its Member Boards.

It’s been several years since I was a delegate to the FSMTB annual meeting, so I went to the website to see what’s happening. The page entitled “Member Services” is “under construction.” That could be because the member services, many of which have been talked about since the Federation was first formed in 2005, don’t actually exist. Projects that have been launched but not completed include the national database of state board disciplinary actions , the practice exam and study guide for the MBLEx, the Model Practice Act, and a comprehensive solution to continuing education regulation. These are all basic services that a board federation should provide to its constituents.

Eight years after the creation of this organization, it’s hard to see exactly what has been accomplished, other than a well-used licensing exam and an annual meeting of Member Boards in generally pleasant locations like San Juan, New Orleans and Redondo Beach.

I’ve had my own concerns about the FSMTB for several years. While I support the idea of all the state boards coming together in the interest of seeking solutions to common problems, I am of the opinion that if you’re spending the money to have meetings, something concrete ought to arise from that. So far, we haven’t seen it. There are quite a few committees and task forces for all these as-yet-undelivered initiatives, but we don’t know what they’re doing, since they don’t publish their minutes for public scrutiny.

As licensees in regulated states that are Member Boards of the FSMTB, I am of the opinion that all their operations need to be transparent and that includes to us, the stakeholders. I’ve heard from former FSMTB board members that they are placed under gag orders not to discuss what’s going on there. That doesn’t work for me at all. They should be as transparent as a clean window, not operating like national security is at risk should their actions become known.

Furthermore, as I have detailed in several previous blogs, the balance of power has shifted to the “Central Command” that consists of the FSMTB Board of Directors and the Executive Director. Over the past several years, this elite group has put through changes to the FSMTB Bylaws that has concentrated organizational control while minimizing the input of the Member Boards. The Directors also managed to get their terms of office lengthened, and to be able to serve two terms AFTER they are no longer serving on their own state board. Once a person has rotated off their state board, they are not beholden to the public interest, they’re serving themselves.

This is just like what we saw at NCBTMB a few years ago, when their Board of Directors voted to double the length of their terms of office, and sewed up the nominations process so that it’s impossible to tell how candidates get on the ballot. This kind of behavior in our non-profit organizations is just unhealthy.

The FSMTB has in the past offered scholarships to state boards if finances meant they couldn’t afford to join, so one assumes that if the Nevada Board was in financial distress, the FSMTB would give them a pass. That isn’t the case, here. The Nevada Board has just plain decided they aren’t getting what they’re paying for. I have to say I applaud them for making this decision.

Talk is cheap, and PowerPoint presentations are not a substitute for action. Maybe this boot from the Nevada Board will serve as a wakeup call that the Federation needs to reevaluate their leadership and where they are going as an organization.

Posted on

Report from the International Massage Therapy Research Conference

This past week I was blessed to attend the International Massage Therapy Research Conference. This event is only held every three years and it was my first time attending. It was held at the Seaport in Boston, a beautiful hotel right on the harbor and right across the street from the World Trade Center, in a great part of town. We enjoyed excellent service from the staff there, so kudos to them.

I arrived on Wednesday in time to view the DVD showing of the International Fascia Research Conference from Vancouver. The presentations from that conference were fascinating, and that event will be the next thing on my wish list. Nothing is better at a movie than popcorn and Milk Duds, which were provided…some of the science presented was above my head, but hey–I went there to learn!

The Conference officially kicked off on Thursday morning with Massage Therapy Foundation President Ruth Werner making some opening remarks, followed by a beautiful blessing from three Native American ladies who were present. Dr. Jeanette Ezzo was the opening keynote speaker. Her topic was “Mechanisms and Beyond: What is Needed to Prove the Effectiveness of Massage?” I must confess I was taken aback at one of her early comments regarding acupuncture. She stated that although there was no scientific proof the meridians exist, that “the efficacy of it gets us off the hook.” I was rather surprised to hear that at a research conference where the focus was on scientific evidence. There was also a poster display, including one entitled “Is There a Place for Energy Work for Children Living With Autism?” It’s just my personal opinion that it was out of place there. That was my only complaint about the entire experience.

On Thursday I also attended a presentation on “Massage Therapy for Specific Conditions,” where four different researchers presented their studies on tension headaches, osteoarthritis in the knee, vascular function, and chronic pain in opiate-addicted patients.

Thursday afternoon I attended the newcomer’s luncheon, where Jerrilyn Cambron, Ruth Werner, and Allissa Haines all gave short talks to those in attendance. Thursday night I attended the welcome reception and met up with a lot of friends.

Friday morning I met with my representatives from Lippincott Williams and Wilkins and then listened to the keynote speech from Leslie Corn, “Somatic Emphathy: Restoring Community Health With Massage,” followed by a panel presentation on “Massage in the Community; Informing Public Health.” That afternoon. I attended a workshop in “Best Practices Guidelines: Building the Framework,” presented by Michael Hamm, Keith Eric Grant, and John Balletto–all previously known to me as Facebook friends–so I was glad to meet them all in person and participate in their class.

Saturday I attended Dr. Janet Kahn’s keynote speech, “Massage in 21st Century Healthcare: Let’s Seize the Moment.” Dr. Kahn’s presentation was probably the most informative and eye-opening moment for me, personally, about the state of health care in general in the US. Let’s just say it is not a pretty picture! As Dr. Kahn pointed out, there is a trend among our politicians to act as if the US has the best health care in the world, but the statistics really show the contrary.

That was followed with a panel presentation on “Next Steps in Massage Therapy Research” moderated by Bodhi Haraldsson, Research Department Director at the Massage Therapist’s Association of British Columbia. I’m telling you now, I could nearly cry when I see how much is done in Canada to advance massage therapy research compared to what is done here. We look disgraceful in comparison. Research literacy is required of every student in every school. $100 of each therapist’s registration fee is used to fund massage therapy research.

Saturday afternoon’s final event was a workshop, “Massage Therapy Research Agenda Planning,” where the approximately 250 attendees split into small groups to brainstorm recommendations for future massage therapy research.

During the whole event I got to visit with so many people, both longtime friends and people I  had only previously met through social media. I shared breakfast one morning with Keith Eric Grant, who was blogging about massage long before I started. I had lunch one day with Lisa Mertz from New York, whom I had previously met in person at the World Massage Festival. Saturday night I had dinner with Ben McDonald and Cliff Martin, owners of Massamio, that I had previously met at another conference.

All in all, it was just a wonderful event. My only regret is that I couldn’t attend every single presentation; some of them overlapped and there was just no way to be in two places at once. Thanks must be given to AMTA as the major sponsor of this event. Other sponsors included Books of Discovery, ABMP, the MA Chapter of AMTA, Anatomy Trains, and Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. The staff of the Massage Therapy Foundation and numerous volunteers kept things running smoothly. A round of applause to them all.

That being said, I feel compelled to go on a rant before I close out this blog. If you are an educator and/or a school owner, you owe it to your students to see to it that they are research literate. I believe there is a serious lack of any knowledge of research literacy in this profession. I am not asking schools to turn out researchers…I AM asking that the basics of research literacy are included in your curriculum, so that your students at least know the difference in what is valid research and what is website hype, one of the numerous myths of massage, or claptrap from a magazine. There is just no excuse for not doing it.

This event only takes place every three years, and the location of the next one has not yet been decided. I don’t care if it’s held on the moon; I will plan to be there.

Posted on

NCBTMB Call for Comments: 911 for Approved Providers

The NCBTMB has decided to call for comments on their latest revisions for the CE/Approved Provider program–something they should have done before they ever unrolled the plan to start with–and I can virtually guarantee they aren’t going to like the responses they receive. I have been cc’d on numerous letters to them from providers, and so far, the only responses I have seen are anger and disgust.

I’m not one to get too bent out of shape about paperwork, and in reality, the revised new requirements are not adding that much of a burden, time-wise. One wants to assume if you are teaching a class that you actually have all the paperwork they are asking to see. Uploading it shouldn’t be such a big deal.

The flash point here is the almighty dollar. It is no secret that the NCBTMB has lost a lot of revenue to the MBLEx in the past few years, and there’s no indication that trend will ever reverse itself. The NCB is proposing quite a drastic increase in approved provider fees, no doubt hopeful that it will increase their financial coffers.

I personally have organizational approval. In their new paradigm, I am considered a “small” organization. In spite of that, my renewal fee is jumping from $300 to $750. Larger organizations are taking a much bigger hit. The biggest increase is going to fall on trade shows and conferences….something I personally enjoy attending. There are already some conferences out there that don’t pay the instructors (or only pay those who are at the top of the big heap), but instead provide them with a table to sell their wares. That’s well and good, but I don’t carry my wares around, personally. My publisher is usually at big conferences, so I don’t go to the expense of shipping books to sell. They’re there selling mine and those of the other authors they represent, and in reality, if I were to pay to ship them myself, my profit would be so miniscule it wouldn’t be worth the trouble. Those conferences, as well as those that do pay instructors, are going to see a big increase in the amount of money they have to pay, so the fallout is going to be either paying the instructors less, charging the students more, or both.

While I frequently get invited to teach in other places, I sometimes host as few as six classes a year at my own facility. I spend several thousand dollars a year to advertise these events. I handle all the registrations, I provide massage tables and linens so people don’t have to worry about transporting those, and I provide snacks for the classes. I pay the instructor 70%–and sometimes more. In the past, when I’ve had a teacher scheduled to come from out of state and they didn’t get the minimum number of students they wanted, I have forgone my percentage altogether in order to make the class happen.

Like many instructors, money isn’t my primary motivation. It’s the love of education, and the thrill that I get when a student calls me up a year or two later and says “Thank you so much. What I learned in  your class that day has really increased my business.”

Providers will really not have any choice at all except to pass this increase in costs on to those who attend our classes.

Adding insult to injury, the FSMTB seems to be charging ahead with their ill-conceived plan to do away with continuing education requirements altogether, except for the classes centered around “public protection” that they plan to offer from their own website.

I’m beginning to think we might as well give up continuing education altogether. We have a couple of national organizations here, one who is in dire need of money and looking at CE providers as the cash cow that will keep them afloat, and the other who is already rolling in money and wants to force their ownership of continuing education down our throats. I don’t like either scenario.

While I am glad that the NCBTMB decided to send out the call for comments, I am wondering how they are going to yet again revise this plan after they see that those comments are all negative. So far, I haven’t seen one single comment on my networks that is in support of this plan and these price increases.

If you have not added your two cents worth yet, I urge you to view this video and then fill out the survey. The NCBTMB has left plenty of space for comments, and you should seize this opportunity to give them your opinion.

UPDATE 09/18/2025: The video has been removed from the NCBTMB website.

Posted on

MOCC-ERY Redux

I have received the following from the Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards. I personally think they are far off the mark on what they intend to do with continuing education, and with their refusal to consider any joint effort with the NCBTMB to organize and streamline the approval process for the good of all concerned. This is their MOCC-ERY plan redux, and it’s giving me a bad case of acid reflux. The first time this plan rolled around, the national office of AMTA responded by shooting 20 holes into it. Those holes are still there, and it is my fond hope that AMTA will reiterate its position.

This is nothing more than another ill-conceived ploy to put the NCBTMB out of business by taking CE out of their hands, making only what THEY want to be required–and furthermore, to require you to get it from them. To add insult to injury, the FSMTB proposes that THEY will choose the experts who will create the courses that YOU will be required to take from them on their website and occasional live classes. CE Providers might as well kiss your income goodbye. Give me a break. If this isn’t a naked power grab, I have never seen one. Here is the communication:

February 27, 2013
 
Dear Colleagues:
 
A White Paper circulating in professional and social media circles proposes the creation of a new organization to approve continuing education providers. FSMTB has not indicated support for such a move and would like to correct certain assumptions pertaining directly to the FSMTB that are made in the paper.
 
The most important reason for regulating the massage and bodywork profession is to ensure public protection and consumer confidence without unduly restricting the ability of licensed, professional therapists to make a living. To better address needs in the area of license renewal, the FSMTB was directed by a vote of its members (State boards and agencies that regulate massage and bodywork therapy) to develop and deliver a solution.
 
To do this, FSMTB looked at research and listened to experts, including consumers, educators, and the therapists themselves. Our recommendation was published in October 2012 in a paper called “Standardized Licensure Renewal Recommendation for Continuing Professional Competence”.  Note: this is no longer available on their website.

   Standardized Licensure Renewal Recommendation
Here’s what we believe is fair and reasonable to ensure competent licensed professionals and protection for the public they serve.
 
Licensed massage and bodywork therapists will be required to complete six (6) hours of license renewal requirements annually. At least three (3) of the six hours must meet the State-sponsored Ethics and Professional Practice course requirements that specifically address content pertaining to public safety. The remaining three (3) hours could be exchanged for certain Professional Development Activities, including but not limited to meeting accredited certification standards, community service, and research.
 
We further believe that it is preferable for all six hours of the license renewal requirements to be in the Ethics and Professional Practice areas, thus eliminating the need for therapists to engage in other activities or classes in order to renew their license. The rationale for limiting the licensing renewal requirements to the Ethics and Professional Practice areas is to ensure that therapists have standardized, current knowledge necessary for safe and competent practice. Additional activities and classes, though beneficial and encouraged, should not be required for re-licensure.
 
Recognizing that there will be a transition phase as the profession progresses, we will establish standards for acceptance of other Professional Development Activities for licensure renewal, such as attaining certifications and attending professional conferences. Again, these activities are to be encouraged but are beyond what should be required to maintain a license.
 
Our goal is to create easily accessible online courses each year on the topics that matter to the State boards, not just to address complaints or sub-standard practice, but to focus on issues such as ethical concerns and therapist safety. Our intent is not to compete with agencies already providing certifications or CE, but to ensure adequate attention to our area of emphasis, Ethics and Professional Practice.
 
For those without access to computers we are considering live classes at events where therapists already gather. We will select experts to work with our licensing boards to create the best courses and we encourage your participation.
 
For States that already have CE requirements, the FSMTB will establish Standards to assist States in determining Professional Development Activities that are acceptable during the transition. We are not proposing that we approve CE Providers, Instructors or Courses; instead, we are concentrating on an alternative solution to address the needs of the regulatory community and the therapists.
 
Considering licensure, we must keep in mind that a license does not reflect that a therapist is brilliant, enthusiastic, nice, or possesses a healing gift. Licensure demonstrates that a therapist has met basic professional standards and is entitled to legally practice.
 
Licensing boards:
-work for the public, not the profession.
-are created to regulate the profession, not elevate it.
-cannot require a double standard – education for experienced professionals that is different from that of entry level therapists.
-must provide the public with an avenue to address harm.
-ensure only that a licensed therapist meets standard competency levels to receive or renew a license.
 
In summary, our role and intent is to work with State boards to protect and to serve the public while at the same time offering a simplified, standardized and relevant solution for therapists.

All providers of continuing education need to contact dpersinger@fsmtb.org and jhuffman@fsmtb.org and let them know we do not want this plan shoved down our throats. Furthermore, providers and licensees can send a letter to your own state massage therapy board letting them know that you do not support this plan of the FSMTB to take over the CE business. Does a practitioner who has been in business 25 years really need to repeat the FSMTB-ordained ethics class for every renewal? Do not sit on your hands–send those emails right now and let the leadership of the FSMTB know you are against this plan.

Update 09/18/2025: Dr. Debra Persinger is still the Executive Director of the FSMTB. Ms. Huffman is no longer with the organization. Their current approval of CE is located here. 

Posted on

Blowin’ in the Wind

Whether you prefer the Bob Dylan original version, or the popular treatment by Peter, Paul & Mary, we have our own version of Blowin’ in the Wind being sung by the leaders of FSMTB and NCBTMB.

My last blog (February 11) focused on problems with regulation of continuing education in the massage profession, and put the spotlight on a comprehensive white paper written by Rick Rosen that offers a innovative solution to a very confusing situation. There’s been a lot of activity around this issue, and from what I hear, a lot of CE providers have contacted FSMTB and NCBTMB to express their displeasure with the programs each one has in the works. I believe that Rosen’s concept of a National Continuing Education Registry is the right tool for the job at this point in the massage therapy profession. It will require cooperation and collaboration from both organizations, and would utilize the talents and resources of both. To me that is a far superior state of affairs than the animosity and one-upmanship that has been the prevailing atmosphere between these two organizations for the past half-dozen years or so.

Over the past two weeks, information has come out of NCB that suggests they may be having second thoughts about their “upgraded” Board Approved CE Provider Program. Donna Sarvello, NCBTMB’s CE manager, said, “Providers do not need to renew until their renewal date because while we are reviewing the new program we have reinstated the past program. I can’t give the exact details on the Organization status at this time because we are tweaking the details and then will put it out for public comment.”

If you look on the Continuing Education page on NCBTMB’s website, there is no evidence of what Ms. Sarvello is talking about. The new Board Approved CE Provider Program is right there in all of its convoluted and excessive glory, with a demand that all providers have to renew with the new system by December 31 of this year. What are providers supposed to believe? I am personally choosing to believe Ms. Sarvello, and I advise the NCBTMB to update the website immediately! Any time there is an update in information and/or policy, the stakeholders need to know that, and having incorrect information on the website for these past few weeks is just inexcusable. I am calling out the NCB to clear up this mass confusion right now by making DAILY updates if necessary. Even a message that says “Sorry, we haven’t decided what to do, so no action is expected of you at this time” would be superior to the incorrect instructions that are still posted.

The FSMTB is no clearer about their plans. Their President, Jaime Huffman, claims that FSMTB is not going to create a CE approval program. That just doesn’t jive with their Call for Participants to create three different volunteer workgroups as part of a new Licensure Renewal Committee. And their Standardized Licensure Renewal Recommendations adopted last year by the Board of Directors states that “FSMTB will establish standards for acceptance of professional development activities, including those offered by membership and voluntary certification organizations.” If that doesn’t sound like some kind of approval program, then what is it supposed to be?

The very latest word I’ve received is that the top two leaders from FSMTB and NCBTMB have had “a conversation” about the continuing ed issue in the past week. That’s a positive development, but we don’t know a darn thing about what was discussed or what these two organizations might be willing to do. Whatever it is, it isn’t going to  happen overnight, but I am very pleased that they are finally at the point of having a discussion, something that Rick Rosen and I both have been calling for for a couple of years now.

In the meantime, keep those emails flowing in to Debra Persinger and Jaime Huffman at FSMTB, and Mike Williams and Sue Toscano at NCBTMB. Let them know that you expect them to work together to forge a unified solution for how CE should be handled, while easing the regulatory burden on CE providers.

It’s time we harnessed the hot air that’s been blowing from these two stakeholder organizations, and direct it towards a positive solution that gives the massage profession what it’s really needing.

Posted on

An Alternative to CE Regulation (just in the nick of time)

As I’ve written about on this blog, the NCBTMB has been trying to roll out an “upgraded” scheme to regulate the entire world of continuing education. After all, their stated mission is “To define and advance the highest standards in the massage and bodywork profession.” (Doesn’t that give them free rein to tell the rest of us what to do?) Apparently, NCB wasn’t satisfied with just approving CE providers – now they want to require the thousands of CE courses to pass through their hands as well. Go back to my posts from November 18, December 28 and January 8 to read about the many problems that are likely to come up if NCB’s new Board Approved Continuing Education Provider Program comes to pass.

If this wasn’t bad enough, along comes the FSMTB who have announced they are jumping into the CE approval game with their own new approval process. They’re calling for volunteers to serve on three different committees that will build and operate a whole deal that will be separate from what NCB is planning.

We already have too many different CE approval hoops for providers to jump through. It’s just plain crazy for FSMTB to be looking at putting another national approval scheme on the map. The feedback I get is that many CE providers are already struggling with the challenges of the economy and the burdens of CE regulation. If nothing changes, things are about to go from bad to worse in the CE community.

Fortunately, some people outside of these two silos have had their thinking caps on. My NC colleague Rick Rosen has just put out a major white paper on this subject, which will give you everything you need to know to understand this issue (and then some). Most importantly, he has come up with a very interesting and practical alternative to the formal regulation of CE, to be called the National Continuing Education Registry.

In this paper, Rosen poses four big questions that challenge the basic assumptions that have driven our regulation of CE. He says these must be addressed before NCB and FSMTB do anything else with their approval schemes.

He provides a lot of useful background information along with detailed answers to these questions. All of that serves as a lead-in to an overview of the National Continuing Education Registry. It is designed to be an online listing service that will replace all existing national and state CE approval processes:

  • CE providers will be screened by a designated entity to determine that: 1) the provider is a legitimate business entity, and 2) where required, the provider has a valid state-issued massage therapy license, registration or certification. Providers will sign a participation agreement that includes adherence to a code of ethics.
  • Each CE course will be screened to determine that it is within established subject matter standards that are broadly relevant to the professional practice of massage therapy.
  • The Registry may be utilized by state massage regulatory agencies as the means to determine whether a CE course is acceptable for renewal of a licensee’s credentials to practice. In a similar way, NCBTMB (or other certification agencies in the future) could utilize this service to determine whether a course taken by a certificant meets the criteria for recertification.
  • This service will give massage therapists a basic level of assurance that listed courses will be accepted for license renewal and/or recertification, and that the course is offered by a credible individual or institutional provider.

The overall structure of the Registry is similar in ways to the Multiple Listing Service concept in real estate. It will be based on a voluntary participation of CE providers, who agree to conduct their business according to a code of ethics. Like shopping for a house, therapists will have to perform their due diligence to find the courses and providers that meet their learning needs. There are no guarantees, but a provider’s reputation for integrity will be a great asset.

So instead of making CE regulation more burdensome, complex and costly, he is offering a way to simplify, streamline and consolidate the whole process. That sounds damn good to me!

If you care about this issue, I highly recommend that you read Rosen’s paper to get the complete picture, and then contact the leaders of NCB and FSMTB and urge them to set aside their own approval programs in favor of this National Continuing Education Registry. The power of grassroots lobbying is the only tool we have to get the small group of people who lead these two organizations to wake up and smell the coffee on this vital issue.

You can download the white paper from this link:
http://tinyurl.com/NCER-Proposal-FEB2013

There are few people who understand how all the pieces fit together in the massage therapy profession. As someone who was a co-founder of both FSMTB and AFMTE, served as a state massage board chair, and is a school director, CE provider and CE sponsor, Rosen takes the long view in looking at the problems in our profession. Frankly, I don’t know where he finds the time to research and write these papers, but I’m sure grateful that someone cares enough to do it! I urge everyone to share this with their networks.

 

Posted on

Caught Between Hubris and The Grudge

All the talk in recent weeks of the “fiscal cliff” and the refusal of the Republicans and the Democrats to play nice together in the interest of the highest common good reminds me of the current situation between the NCBTMB and the FSMTB.

The NCBTMB is operating from hubris (not to mention cluelessness), as they continue to put forth wrong-headed initiatives for the field. The latest plan to do away with organizational approval for CE providers is just the latest in a stream of missteps from the organization. They rolled that sudden announcement out like it was the best thing since sliced bread, and providers are choking on it. The application to become an approved provider has been totally removed from their website in the last day or two. I think they might be revisiting some of that plan in response to the unfavorable reception, which has included rumblings of boycotting the organization.

FSMTB is doing their own thing with the MBLEx well enough–in fact, extremely well, but when it comes to dealing with NCBTMB, it appears that the leadership of the FSMTB would rather see the organization fail than lift a hand to help them. They appear to be bearing a huge grudge over the way NCBTMB has treated the Federation, and their unwillingness to move beyond that is stopping progress at the whole-profession level.

In case you’re uninformed, the NCBTMB has had their exam removed in a few states, and they have successfully legally challenged and won those challenges. That doesn’t sit well with the Federation, who would like to see the MBLEx as the only exam for entry-level massage licensing.

The NCBTMB needs to get out of the entry-level exam business, in my opinion, but they can’t afford to right now. I believe they were depending on the increased revenue from the new requirement of CE course approvals to be the cash cow that would bail them out and make them financially viable again. The problem is that it’s unfair and unreasonable to put this burden on the backs of the CE provider community that is already challenged in so many ways.

FSMTB could provide that bridge through a transfer agreement and compensation package, which would resolve the “Exam Wars” once and for all. That type of action is not without precedent; it has happened in other licensed professions when it became apparent that it was time to evolve into a more streamlined process for the good of all concerned, including licensees.

It’s insane for FSMTB to even be meeting about building its own CE approval program, which they are in fact doing, when it would create more problems than it would solve. If these two organizations would sit down and hammer out such an agreement, the NCBTMB could remain the administrator of a dialed-back CE registry program, which state boards could reference, and which could finally serve as the one unified solution that the CE provider community has been needing. If the Federation jumps into the fray with yet another approval program and persuade the states to accept that, it will take but a few short years for them to put the NCBTMB out of business once and for all, which I would prefer not to see happen.

It’s time to put the hubris and the grudge and the egos aside and come to the table. The board members of both of these organizations have the power to make that happen. Your directors serve at your discretion and you ought to remember that you are not there to blindly follow the leader. A meeting of the minds is not possible when a meeting hasn’t taken place. If I were serving on either of these boards, I would be making the motion to sit down together and come to an agreement that will serve the profession on the whole.
 

Posted on

CE Providers React to NCBTMB’s New Approval Plan

In the past couple of weeks since the NCBTMB unveiled their new plan for CE providers, which includes doing away with organizational approval, the reaction of providers has for the most part been very negative–and frankly I’m not surprised. The long-standing organizations who are providing quality continuing education approved feel, for the most part, that the organization they have supported for many years is throwing them under the bus.

Some of the main concerns that I  have heard are from providers who have created proprietary classes and who have trained and approved their own instructors to go out and teach their work. They are now faced with the instructors that they have invested time and money in training and marketing classes for going out on their own, taking copyrighted teaching manuals and proprietary handouts with them, and acting as if they are under no obligation pay the percentage or per-student charge that they have agreed to pay as teaching members of the organizations. Those same instructors who have been mentored and marketed under our organizations are now saying “we’ll just be out on our own after 2014.” They are making it clear that they feel free to take our proprietary materials away with them—because the new rules are basically blessing that—and never give the organization that put them where they are another dime.

Those who have organizational approval do not want unqualified people teaching for their organizations and misrepresenting their good names, and have gone to considerable effort and expense to make sure that is not the case. While there is certainly nothing wrong with requiring us to provide proof of that, taking all instructors from under our organizational umbrella and putting them out there on their own is also going to create logistical nightmares. The organization has been responsible for collecting and maintaining registration forms, evaluation forms, etc. and issuing CE. In the case of Upledger, for example, now instead of one organization handling those administrative tasks, there will be more than 100 separate instructors keeping up with that. The organization will have no control and no more quality assurance that they will be able to exercise.

The organizations and schools that sponsor CE workshops at the national, state, and local levels will suffer from these changes as well. This is also financially crippling and over-burdensome to smaller organizations who may not teach that many classes each year. When it comes to education, quality and quantity are not the same thing.

The notion that having people turn in all their lesson plans as proof that they are a competent teacher is also flawed. My publisher hires me to write lesson plans all the time to go with their textbooks and for career schools who want customized plans. I’ve written at least 20 this year alone. If you have the money to hire me, I will write one for you. It still will not make you a competent teacher. A well-written lesson plan doesn’t necessarily indicate that you’re a great teacher; it indicates that you are either a competent writer, or that you hired someone like me to write it for you. Requiring people to send in a video of themselves teaching would be more indicative of whether or not they are competent, since the organization obviously cannot afford to vet every class in person.

In response to the outcry since the NCBTMB announced the plan, they have stated that they will consider some of these issues on a case-by-case basis. I would like to know how they plan to carry that out with volunteers—volunteers whose qualifications to judge us we have no knowledge of, as they are not releasing the names of the people on that committee. Are they experienced educators? Are they trained in teaching methodology? Are the research literate? We don’t know; we can only hope so.

I find it necessary to bring up that the reason the NCBTMB changed from vetting individual classes years ago was because the task became too overwhelming for the paid staff to handle and getting volunteers together to do it caused the process to move at the pace of molasses. It is unacceptable for someone to wait six months—as has been common at several points in time—to get their approval or denial. It is very apparent from the latest 990 filing that the NCBTMB cannot afford to hire new staff and that they will indeed be depending on volunteers until such time as this might generate enough money to enable that. This is one of the service problems that has come very close to knocking this organization to its knees in the past, and they do not need to go backwards instead of forward.

Considering things on a “case-by-case” basis also leaves this organization open to accusations of favoritism, if not worse. The massage community is a tight-knit and close community, in spite of the fact that there are thousands of us. Those of us who are organizational providers tend to attend the same events, and travel in the same circles. What you allow for one, you must allow for all. To do otherwise is simply unethical and unprofessional, and the first time it comes to light, and it certainly will, that any consideration given to one has not been given to all, it is going to be another public relations nightmare for the NCBTMB. I don’t think they can stand to have many more of those.

Let’s look at a few facts.

There are currently a half dozen states with their own CE approval process. The NCBTMB is not the only game in town…and it is that same complacency of thinking that has resulted in the FSMTB kicking their butt with the MBLEx. I would not fall into the mistake of thinking that the Federation isn’t willing to step up and do something about CE approval as well. They may seize upon the dissatisfaction of the current environment; they already have the infrastructure, and big cash reserves at their disposal. The Federation doesn’t “need” the money, and the perception here from providers is that the NCBTMB is trying to bail themselves out of the red with this plan.

There is no evidence to support that regulation, including requiring CE, has contributed to the safety of the public. There have always been unethical and incompetent practitioners, and for that matter unethical and/or incompetent CE providers, and they will continue to exist, regardless of the amount of rules and regulations. Look at how things stand in other professions. There are 17 states that don’t require nurses to obtain CE. There are 10 states that don’t require PTs to obtain CE. Even MDs have 7 states that don’t require them to obtain CE—but all three of these professions are licensed in all 50 states.

Other than the 30 or so of us (including myself) who were present at the meeting the NCBTMB convened in Chicago to discuss this issue a couple of years ago, there has been no attempt to gather the input of the (hundreds of) providers that are currently under the auspices of the NCBTMB.  I believe this organization is in need of our support, not our animosity and distress.

I urge them to abandon this plan, and gather input from a much broader slice of the profession before considering such drastic measures again.

Posted on

The Financial Health of Our Organizations: FSMTB

Note: For the past few years I have done a series of reports on the financial status of the non-profit organizations that represent the massage therapy profession. I obtain this information from Guidestar, a financial information clearinghouse for non-profits. The organizations can provide their Form 990 (Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax) to Guidestar, and if they don’t, the IRS does it for them. I will state for the record that I am not an accountant or a financial analyst; I just report what I see (and maybe offer a few opinions). I usually get asked the question every year why I am not reporting on ABMP. Associated Bodywork & Massage Professionals is a privately-owned for-profit company, and they are not obligated to release their financial information. Non-profits are on a different filing schedule than the rest of us, and there is variance amongst them in when their fiscal year ends. The deadline for filing is the 15th day of the fifth month after the end of their fiscal year. An organization can also request and receive up to two 90-day extensions, and due to the number who haven’t filed yet for 2011, it appears that some of them have done that.

It’s business as usual at the Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards…they’re rolling in the dough, and they appear to be immune to the slow economy. For the fiscal year ending 06/30/2011, they are showing a total gross revenue of over $4.3 million, well over a million dollars up from the previous year. Their total assets increased in a year’s time by almost $1.3 million, while their liabilities went down to less than $16,000—down from over $218,000 the previous year. Their net revenue after expenses is almost $1.5 million, up over $490K since the previous year. Their theme song could be “We’re in the money.”

One difference in the Federation and other organizations is that their Board members do not receive any reportable compensation. The only compensation listed on the form for key personnel is that of Executive Director Debra Persinger, who was paid $196,324 and received an additional $23,039, which is just listed as “other compensation from the organization and related organizations.” I’ve heard through the grapevine that she has received a big raise since this form was filed, but I guess we won’t know until next year. They do show about $24K in other salaries; I assume that is the office assistant. They don’t have a big staff.

I have to say that I find it a little bit funny that they only spent $5500 on advertising. I spent more than twice that advertising my massage business. “Occupancy” is listed as over $19,000; and travel is listed at a little over $14K. While I realize the need to travel to meetings and conventions, I will say one thing. When the FSMTB first came on the scene, they were very critical of the NCBTMB spending the stakeholder’s money holding meetings in fancy places….so I personally think they ought to police themselves a little more. This year, I hear they had a meeting in the Trump Tower in Manhattan–not exactly the Holiday Inn, I imagine.

Other than Persinger’s salary, their primary expenses are over $1.2 million paid to Pearson Vue for exam delivery, almost $900K to PCS for exam processing, and a little over $110K to Meaningful Measurement for exam development. Their office expenses were only about $15K.

No need to bore you with line-by-line details. I’ll just say the Federation is the poster child for being in good financial shape and let it go with that.

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial