Category: Massage Associations

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

A Change for the Better at the Massage Therapy Foundation and AMTA

This past week the Massage Therapy Foundation announced that Gini S. Ohlson will become the new Executive Director of the organization, effective July 1. Ohlson has been the AMTA‘s staff director for the MTF since 1998.

This is part of the paradigm shift between the two organizations, and I think it’s a good one. AMTA was the founder of the Massage Therapy Foundation back in 1990, and the Executive Director of AMTA has also always acted as the Executive Director of the Foundation. I’ve always wondered how well that worked out, since both organizations carry a lot of responsibility and it would seem to me to be a full-time job to fill either position. Both organizations have come to the same conclusion and have mutually agreed that it is time for the MTF to function more independently.

The Foundation will continue to be housed in AMTA’s offices in Evanston, IL, and the AMTA will continue to support the MTF, albeit in a different way from in the past. AMTA has traditionally paid the staff salaries for the Foundation staff. Under the new agreement, AMTA will continue to contribute to the finances of the MTF, but they will be paying their own staff salaries. AMTA has also committed to donating $50K per year earmarked specifically for massage therapy research.

AMTA’s new Executive Director, former Deputy Director Bill Brown, will be taking over when current ED Shelly Johnson steps down on May 17. I spoke with both of the at the International Massage Therapy Research Conference last weekend. I had previously asked Brown to consent to an interview for my blog when he takes over, and couldn’t resist jerking his chain a little bit by telling him I was going to have Johnson do a guest blog first entitled “Final Instructions for Bill.” Both have years of service to AMTA. I wish Johnson the best in her retirement and look forward to seeing what Brown will do as leader of the organization. AMTA and the MTF will continue to work together for the good of the profession, I have no doubts.

My attendance at the International Massage Therapy Research Conference last week just reaffirmed for me how important it is to support the Massage Therapy Foundation. I urge every massage therapist to support the Foundation in whatever way you can. If each therapist donated the cost of one massage per year to the MTF, that would be a huge amount of money. Just do it! You can donate here.

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

Confusion Reigns

I’d like to just steal Sandy Fritz’s blog this week, but instead I’ll post the link to it. She expressed many of the same things I have been feeling in “Beyond Frustration.“ Confusion reigns. I get at least a half-dozen questions a day from massage therapists and providers asking me if I understand the latest move from the NCBTMB, or do I know what’s going on with this or that new requirement, or which exam should I take to get licensed, etc. Frankly, I’m confused and frustrated myself, in spite of being relatively well informed about what’s going on.

I see confused massage therapists every day on my social networks referring to their certification from the NCBTMB as a “national license.” There is no such thing as a national license. It would be a lot easier for us all if such a thing existed, but it doesn’t. A few years ago, I noticed that a teacher I had hired to come to my facility to teach a CE class had been ordered by our state board to cease and desist practicing massage without a license. When I called her to see what was going on, she said “But I have a national license!” No, you don’t. None of us do.

My own confusion was compounded again this weekend when I received my certificate proclaiming that I am now Board Certified–the new credential from the NCBTMB. Personally, I think calling it that is a huge blunder on their part. It really doesn’t make any differentiation from the old paradigm of “National Certification” and people are confused about it. The certificate is bigger and a little nicer-looking, but my new certificate says that I have been certified since 2000. Well, yes I have, but this is supposedly a new and different credential, and I didn’t get it until 2013. There is something that doesn’t seem right about that.

I could go on, but I won’t. The tragedy that occurred at the Boston Marathon yesterday has me feeling sad and angry and confused and just out of sorts. It seems ridiculous to focus on whatever complaints I have about the way things are going in the massage world when people are dead and wounded and grieving for their loved ones so I’m going to save the rest of my rants for another day.

 

 

 

 

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

The Financial Health of Our Organizations: AMTA

This is the fourth year that I have reported on the financial status of the non-profit organizations that represent the massage therapy profession. I am not an accountant or a financial expert. The information is taken from Guidestar, a clearinghouse where you can look up the financial filings of non-profits.

This blog has been revised–after I posted the original blog, Guidestar posted AMTA’s latest 990. Since non-profits have a different filing schedule that the rest of us, it is not unusual for the “latest” 990 appearing on the website to be a year old or more. This revision reflects the 2012 filing. It was signed in October of 2012 and just made it to the Guidestar site within the past week. Thank you to Rachel Mann, VP of AMTA Board of Directors, for bringing it to my attention.

The American Massage Therapy Association is showing a net revenue of over $419K, compared to their loss for the previous year of almost $110K. Glad to see they’re out of the hole.

The revenue increased over $600K from the previous year.

AMTA compensates the members of their elected Board of Directors, in amounts ranging from $5000 for members-at-large to almost $40K for the President (during this filing, that was Glenath Moyle.) Executive Director Shelly Johnson was paid almost $261K–a drastic cut from the $316K plus almost $10K in “other” compensation that was paid out on the 2011 filing to the immediate past ED, Elizabeth Sublewski (aka Liz Lucas).  Sublewski also received severance pay of over $82,000 on the 2011 return. On the 2012 return, she received almost $260K….apparently, it was quite expensive to the organization to get Sublewski off the job. My hope is that in the future, AMTA will negotiate executive contracts that are more favorable to the organization. Total salaries accounted for about 3.5 million; that is actually almost $500K less than they were the year before.

Over $11 million dollars worth of AMTA’s revenue came directly from membership dues. The remaining revenue is derived from sales of literature, convention sponsorships and booths, advertising, and investments.

AMTA has the same kind of expenses that any other business or organization does–office supplies, information technology, advertising, postage, banking and credit card processing fees, and so forth. None of it looks out of line, considering the size of the organization. AMTA represents over 57,000 members. They’ve seen recessions come and go and have survived them all. As a long-standing member myself, I have never seen service suffer in any way, whether it was a fat year or a lean year.

As an aside, I hear that Executive Director Shelly Johnson is stepping down later this spring to spend more time with family. She has done an excellent job during the 8 years she spent as Deputy Director, and since she stepped up into the ED position in 2010. She will be missed by the organization, and I wish her the best of luck.

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.
 

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial