Posted on

I’m in Pain

Yes, I’m in pain. Believe it or not, it pains me to write negatively about the National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage & Bodywork. I am personally acquainted with many of the people who work there, from the CEO, Mike Williams, on down, to Board members, staff members and volunteers. I count some of them among my friends. I know for a fact that they are dedicated and hard-working people.

I’ve been NCTMB since 2000 and an approved provider of CE since 2002. I’ve seen the ups and the downs of the organization: the days of great service, and the days of bad service. I’ve seen the leaders who had the best interests of the profession at  heart–and one or two who were on a personal mission to bring down the organization with their wild spending and lack of professional ethics. And I’ve seen–and even been a party to–some of their missteps. A couple of years ago when they announced an advanced certification exam, I signed right on. I even appeared in an advertising campaign for it, along with quite a few other well-known massage therapists, educators, and even some illustrious physicians. The failure of that project, I believe, was because it was a general thing, and not a specialty certification–which the profession has been requesting for quite some time.

CEO Mike Williams responded to my Wish List blog last week. I met Williams at the AFMTE meeting a couple of months ago and spent a very enjoyable couple of hours talking with him one-on-one. I hear (from other folks, he wasn’t bragging) that he has a proven track record of helping floundering organizations get back on track. He even joked to me that he had learned everything he needed to know about the NCB from reading my blog.

You can’t please all of the people all of the time, and I know that just from the comments I receive on this blog. However, distress at their latest action seems to be shared by more than a few people. The NCBTMB sent out an application for a new assigned school code to massage schools this week. Now, the organization has required a school code since the beginning; it’s just a number that students must include on their application to sit for one of the NCB exams, and it is supposed to demonstrate that the school is legitimate. That’s good in theory; and I think the original intent was to keep schools and/or individuals from falsifying diplomas and transcripts.

A number of school owners went up in arms this week when they received the application. True, it is just seven pages long, and that’s way less than what is required for a state board school approval or COMTA accreditation…but therein lines the issue: except for the schools in the few unregulated states, these schools have already been approved by their state boards, and in some cases, one or more accrediting bodies as well.

One school owner on my FB page said “We are opting out. The list of required paperwork is oppressive. Our school is now sending them all off to the Mblex. It’s moves like this that, in my opinion, will seal the deal of completely making the NCBTMB irrelevant. We had a school code with them, we maintain state approval which can be verified easily on the state website. The additional hassle which this organization seems to thrive on is over my tolerance level.”

Another sore point is the human trafficking angle. Now, I don’t think anyone is in favor of human trafficking except the people who are making a living off of it. As background, there has been legislation introduced in a few states requiring massage establishments to post notices about human trafficking–something that isn’t required in a convenience store (in other words, they’re picking on us again, supposedly because massage is a business in which it’s a big problem). On their 2010 990 filing, the NCB reported giving a $5000 donation to the Polaris Project, which fights human trafficking. They also started publishing brochures about human trafficking and selling them (at 2.50 for 25 of them, I don’t think they’re getting a big revenue stream off of that).

On the application that came out this week, school owners are being asked to sign a pledge about not participating in human trafficking, and doing whatever they can to stop human trafficking. I got calls from a few people that were upset about that; they stated to me that the NCBTMB was overstepping its boundaries and giving a false impression of having regulatory or law enforcement authority. Personally, I think any entity donating money to the Polaris Project and doing their part to fight human trafficking is admirable, but as someone on my FB page pointed out, is there really any school actually participating in such a thing that wouldn’t just sign the pledge anyway? It’s like asking people if they use illegal drugs on a job application. No one is going to write down that they have a cocaine habit, are they?

On the NCBTMB website, there are a couple of dozen schools listed as having their school code suspended, revoked, or denied. The reasons are not given, so one doesn’t know whether they were found to be participating in human trafficking, running a diploma mill, or what.

In his response on my blog, CEO Mike Williams talked about the forthcoming improvements from the NCB. Let me say, as much as it pains me: different singer, same song. I must make it clear that I have wanted this organization to survive, and thrive, but I am very concerned. And as Angela Palmier pointed out in her comments, people laughed when there was talk of another entity creating a licensing exam. In the meantime, the MBLEx has proceeded to saturate the market and it will just continue to get bigger and bigger–even if the NCBTMB steps in to challenge the states’ right to choose, like they did last week in Tennessee. They did actually prevail there, but at what cost? The Board members were upset, the GR rep from AMTA was upset, and in the end, the decision for the Board to acquiesce was based on their desire not to see their other impending legislation get scrapped in the crossfire.

In addition to the FSMTB sticking their toe in the water to test the profession’s reaction to their CE plan, I’ve recently been contacted by several people about starting (yet another) CE approval body. It wouldn’t happen overnight, but there’s no reason to think it can’t be done. For that matter, there is nothing to prohibit another entity from starting another certification agency….just like there are numerous accrediting agencies besides COMTA. It could happen.

I don’t doubt that the NCB has good intentions–but as we all know, good intentions are sometimes misguided. Placing an additional and very unnecessary burden on school  owners is misguided and the perception is that it’s one more example of duplicated efforts in this profession. Challenging state boards is misguided. The NCB needs all the public support they can get, and that isn’t winning them any friends. It is creating ill will, period. Hanging on to entry-level licensing instead of focusing on  becoming the one true certification agency is misguided. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

 

Posted on

If at first you don’t succeed….

Try, try again. That’s what the regulatory board in my home state of North Carolina is recommending when it comes to getting the Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards to do something about the confusing status of continuing education approvals.

Two years ago, the NC Board of Massage & Bodywork Therapy introduced a resolution at the Annual Meeting of the FSMTB (which was held in Puerto Rico). This document instructed the Federation’s Board of Directors to “begin the process of developing a new national approval program for continuing education providers and courses.” The organization’s leadership responded positively to the resolution, and announced to the profession in the Spring of 2011 the launch of a comprehensive project to do just that. They also invited AFMTE, AMTA and ABMP to work with them to provide input that would help shape the project.

In spite of this clearly stated intention to develop a “centralized quality assurance process for all courses taken by massage and bodywork therapists for the renewal of State licensure or State certification” (quoted verbatim from the FSMTB press release dated 3/29/11), the outcome of this process missed the mark by a country mile. The MOCC Proposal, which stands for Maintenance of Core Competencies, failed to deliver what the state boards asked for, and what FSMTB promised.

To remind you, the MOCC Proposal was based on a new (and unproven) concept of separating continuing education that relates to “public protection” from all other CE that is taken for “professional development”. MOCC recommended that only CE related to “public protection” be required by state boards for renewal of licensure, and everything else be put into the voluntary category, to be regulated by… well, the proposal didn’t even mention NCBTMB. If this all weren’t bad enough, FSMTB would become the exclusive provider of coursework needed to maintain “core competency” in the subjects related to “public protection”.

For more background on the MOCC issue, refer to my blog posts of 3/14/12 and 4/15/12. It’s also illuminating to read the press release AMTA issued on 4/23/12 which contained a complete repudiation of the Federation’s proposal.

In a friendly game of golf, you can take a “mulligan” every now and again–a “do-over”. My colleagues at the NC Board are giving the FSMTB leadership an opportunity to take a mulligan on this vitally important CE approval issue. They have recently submitted another resolution to be discussed by Member Boards at the upcoming FSMTB Annual Meeting in New Orleans on September 27-29. This resolution is much like the original from two years ago, and its appearance at this point in time indicates that the need for a single-source national CE approval program has not gone away.

The primary rationale is contained in this statement from the new resolution:
“Reliance upon the NCB Approved Provider program has been problematic for state boards because (a) NCB is a private, non-profit corporation that lacks oversight from and accountability to state regulatory boards; (b) its program has not adequately evaluated the quality or relevance of CE courses; (c) administration of this program has had notable service delivery problems over an extended period of time.”

That’s all true, but the opera ain’t over ’til the fat lady sings. The NCBTMB has the infrastructure already in place–and this will be nothing more than another case of duplicated efforts if the Federation steps in and tries to take it away without consideration of the NCB’s position in that marketplace. I think a collaboration would be more appropriate; by contracting with the NCB to administer CE approvals, FSMTB could establish the accountability structure that state boards must have with NCB, and FSMTB wouldn’t have to reinvent the wheel. They could just improve upon it.

Yesterday, I conducted one of my Scientific Facebook Polls, and asked the questions: How many MTs REALLY care what is happening with our professional organizations and what they are doing? How many people care about the MTBOK, the ELAP, the MOCC (don’t y’all love all these acronyms) or even know what they really are? How many people care about the legislation and regulation of massage? How many people care that there are initiatives to raise standards for teachers of massage therapy and for massage education in general? Do you care about all those things, or would you rather just be left alone to do massage?

I got 75 replies in a 24-hour period, and one thing is apparent: to the average massage therapist trying to make a living, many perceive our organizations to be all about politics and all about money. To some extent, that’s true…the one with the most money wins. The perception is also that they all have their own agendas. Actually, recently some of them seem to have the same agenda, but they’ve wasted time and money in duplicating efforts, or opposing each other’s efforts, and scrapping over turf wars. In a recent blog I urged the NCBTMB to take themselves out of the entry-level exam market and suggested that the FSMTB assists them financially in return for their doing so. Earlier this week, in a piece published in Massage Today, Ralph Stephens called on AMTA and ABMP to offer “substantial and ongoing financial support” to COMTA and AFMTE, to further their important efforts to improve the quality of massage therapy education.

FSMTB and the NCB have recently conducted new Job Task Analysis surveys, both of them seriously flawed, in my humble opinion. These surveys show a strong bias towards the clinical/medical side of massage therapy, and contain virtually nothing about the KSA’s related to delivering massage therapy as a primary means of facilitating well-being and integration. From my perspective, the latter is of equal or greater importance.

In addition, the FSMTB survey has a special add-on section to gather data for the Entry-Level Analysis Project (ELAP). This dual-purpose survey does ask lots of questions about specific medical conditions, but it contains nothing about the client/therapist relationship. The word “relax” does not appear anywhere, and the word “relaxation” shows up just once.

There’s also an over-focus on the huge number of modalities that are marketed in this field. Many of these listed are obscure and little-understood. It’s wrong to ask a therapist to define themselves by a single named modality. Practitioners typically use a broad range of methods with clients. The modality is not the treatment — it’s the totality of what a practitioner brings to the session.

Finally, this Federation JTA is similar to the recent JTA from NCBTMB: another duplicated effort that still falls short of giving an accurate picture of what happens in the real world of massage therapy. You can count how many times a week we give a massage or take SOAP notes, but that’s not what it’s really about. It’s about our rapport with the client, and what kind of results we are able to produce, and what kind of trust we can inspire in our therapeutic relationships. The MTBOK generally missed the boat on this as well, although I have high hopes that the line-by-line analysis and re-mapping of the MTBOK that was conducted by AFMTE will give us a usable body of knowledge.

As a result of these large-scale projects, it’s likely that the kind of incomplete and disjointed training that is typical in our field will get further enshrined as the baseline for education. Skewed survey questions produce skewed data. Using that data to build a new standard for the entire field is not just wrong, it’s a crime against the lineage of massage therapy. Just look at what has happened to the other health care professions who have organized themselves around the mechanistic/reductionistic model. People are treated as parts, and no discipline ever looks at the whole person. Massage therapists still have the ability to treat holistically. Relaxation is being relegated to a lower-class status of therapeutic effect, when it’s one of the most valuable aspects we offer with this work.

This whole scenario illustrates one thing: the time has never been more ripe for getting our act together, and that isn’t going to happen while there’s all this push and pull and one-upmanship going on with the organizations. When the leaders of the seven primary stakeholder groups sat down at the table for the first time last September, the ELAP proposal appeared out of nowhere–it wasn’t even on the agenda and it got slid in anyway. I would like to see them sit down again, and take a serious look at these issues. Put ego and profit aside. Take a real look at the flaws in your information-gathering processes. If you want to see what massage therapists really think, sign on to my Facebook page and you might get a rude awakening at their opinions of you. You wouldn’t exist without us, and what we think does matter. A Job Task Analysis survey asks what we do--and frankly, it isn’t near as important as what we think. Consider that.

 

Posted on

NCBTMB: Quit the Small Stuff and Take the Bold Step

Nearly two years ago, the Tennessee Board of Massage Licensure voted to change its rule pertaining to the examinations approved for licensure of massage therapists. They chose to adopt the Massage & Bodywork Licensing Examination offered by FSMTB as the only approved exam – and sunset the use of the National Certification Examination for Therapeutic Massage & Bodywork offered by NCBTMB.

That decision was entirely within the Board’s authority, and was based on the fact that the MBLEx is owned and administered by FSMTB, which consists of its Member Boards. This structure gives state regulatory boards direct ownership and supervision over this exam, which has never been the case with the use of NCBTMB’s private certification exams for state licensure purposes.

Rule changes can sometimes take a long time to make their way through the administrative process, and Tennessee’s exam rule just came up yesterday for final approval before a committee of the State Senate. This could and should have been a simple legislative rubber stamp of an agency decision, but NCBTMB threw a monkey wrench into the works by sending in a representative to oppose the rule change.

I was told last year by former NCBTMB CEO Paul Lindamood that they were swearing off the battle against the MBLEx, and would no longer challenge state massage board actions around exam approvals. He stated to me at the time that he knew they weren’t making any friends by doing so. The new CEO, Mike Williams, who came on board last September, apparently does not share that point of view.

At the committee hearing, the Senators stayed the decision on the rule change for another 30 days and sent the matter back to the Board for further consideration. According to my sources, the hearing went poorly, with legislators failing to understand the difference in the exams, state board members unable to answer the question about what the pass rate is on the exam, and general confusion leading to the stay instead of a decision.

I spoke to NCBTMB President Alexa Zaledonis today, who stated that “We didn’t go to Tennessee to fight, but to state our position. There are still people who want to take our exams and we support them having a choice. We never desire to create controversy in the states. We have quality licensing exams, a lot of people do like them and ask us to help keep them available in their states. No malicious intent, just a desire to let those people have a choice and so we try to stand up for them in an appropriate fashion.”

Earlier this year, there was an ugly ruckus in Ohio over a similar kind of rule change. It ended in a Massage Therapy Advisory Committee member being removed after he asked the NCBTMB during the hearing: “How much money will it take to make you go away?” It was deemed unprofessional conduct at best, and an offer of a bribe at worst.

While I hate the way the question was put forth, it has more than a little basis in reality. I personally would paraphrase that to: “How much money will it take for you to get out of the entry-level licensing exam business?” 38 states are still accepting the NCBTMB exams, but all you have to do is look at NCB’s financials (available on Guidestar.org) to see that they’ve had their butt kicked by the MBLEx. The MBLEx is a licensing exam used for licensing purposes. It’s the right tool for the job, and the marketplace has affirmed it by an overwhelming margin. The state boards themselves don’t derive income from the MBLEx; FSMTB is a non-profit organization (as is NCBTMB) and the Member Boards pay annual dues to the Federation.

If you’ve been reading my blog for long, you know that this is a relatively new opinion of mine –that the NCBTMB should get out of the entry-level exam market. I argued against that for a number of years. Rick Rosen, (a fellow North Carolinian and industry thought leader), has argued that point with me here on this blog and in other forums a number of times, as have others, and I resisted that change for a long time. However, I finally came around to Rosen’s point of view. A few months ago when NCBTMB announced the creation of a new post-graduate Board Certification credential and the ending of the current entry-level National Certification credential, I truly felt like it was the best move to be made.

The issue is that ever since the appearance of the MBLEx, the value of being Nationally Certified has largely gone by the wayside. I’ve heard many accusations that the MBLEx is an easier test than the National Certification Exam. This is not a valid argument, because these are two different tests created for entirely different purposes. The real point here is that National Certification no longer distinguishes therapists from the pack like it did back in the days when it was the only credentialing exam in the massage therapy field. I have personally been NCTMB for 12 years. I have always maintained my certification, even after the MBLEx appeared, but I know many therapists who have let it go because they’ve reached the belief that it doesn’t mean anything in the marketplace.

Under the new plan, Board Certification includes the requirements of 750 hours of education, passing a new higher-level exam, 250 hours of hands-on experience, keeping CPR certification current, and a criminal background check. Those who are already Nationally Certified will not have to take the new exam. In our conversation today, Zaledonis stated “Our Board Certification exam is created to test individuals who have achieved 750 hours of education and are at a level of expertise that exceeds an entry level graduate. Over 8000 individuals responded to our JTA, these answers (after psychometric interpretation) along with a panel of subject matter experts were used to differentiate between a entry level licensed practitioner and a certified practitioner. Our Certification test is different from a licensing exam in that it uses more cognitive thinking over just recall using innovative items over traditional. This test, coupled with the other requirements, are the start of a program that truly differentiates licensing from certification.”

I personally know many of the people on the staff and on the Board of the NCBTMB. I have no doubts about their dedication to the profession, and when it comes down to it, the organization isn’t an island. A CEO serves at the pleasure of the Board, and Board members have to reach a consensus. Apparently the members who are currently serving the NCBTMB have agreed to follow this path of continuing to challenge state boards, and that distresses me. I think it is a misguided effort, no matter how good their intentions. Even the name of the organization speaks to that: National Certification Board. It isn’t the National Licensing Board. There isn’t a National License. There is no portability, and the swirling sewer of argument and confusion around the exams is not helping the situation. I think the time is ripe for the NCBTMB to get out of the entry-level market altogether and focus 100% of their resources on the development and rollout of their new post-graduate credential. This IS something that our profession needs, and I urge the NCB leadership to let go of the past and turn towards the future.

I imagine that money is a primary factor in the organization hanging on to entry-level testing, and in the decision to continue challenging state boards that are ready to drop them. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that states don’t want a private certification organization coming in and telling them how to run their business. State board members are normally unpaid volunteers who give up home, family and work time to serve a board….and to have an outside party come in and tell them they did the wrong thing doesn’t sit very well, (as I personally know). I don’t want to see the NCBTMB crippled to the vanishing point. Going around challenging state agencies is expensive, and it doesn’t win them any friends.

So here we are with a Catch-22. It’s time for NCBTMB to exit the entry-level testing business, but they don’t have the money to sustain them while the new Board Certification program is getting built. They need a bridge to help them get where we would like them to go.

There is a straightforward solution to this situation. Since the lion’s share of revenue from entry-level testing has shifted over to FSMTB, they now have a significant cash reserve. It is in the best interests of their Member Boards to bring a quick and painless end to the “exam wars” and to establish the MBLEx as the single standardized exam for state licensure. The profession as a whole will benefit, and portability for therapists will be improved.

What needs to happen is that NCBTMB declares that it will no longer offer any of its exams for state licensure purposes as of a certain date. In exchange, FSMTB will give NCBTMB a certain amount of money over a period of time to compensate it for this move. The mechanism for this process is called a Transfer Agreement, and there is a clear precedent we can look at.

For many years, the American Physical Therapy Association owned and operated the national exam used by state PT boards for licensure. APTA (like our own AMTA) is a private non-profit membership association, with no accountability to state PT boards. Because of the same inherent problems we’ve finally come to recognize, the Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy entered into negotiations with APTA, and engineered a Transfer Agreement to take over that exam in the late ’80s. It’s worked like a charm ever since. Physical Therapy has 50-state licensure, and a lot more consistency in their state-to-state regulations than we have in the massage field.

Having one standardized national licensing exam is one of the hallmarks of a profession. We are at a critical juncture, where the opportunity to take a major step towards professional status is within our grasp. This will take the willingness and cooperation of the leaders of both NCBTMB and FSMTB to come together to work out the details of this agreement.

Let’s stop wasting time on the small stuff. Take the bold step, for the betterment of all.

 

 

 

Posted on

Report from the FSMTA Meeting

Champ and I spent the weekend at the Florida State Massage Therapy Association meeting in ChampionsGate, FL. It was our first time attending this event, and we went there to work in the Soothing Touch booth with Gurukirn Khalsa and his family. The event was  held at the beautiful Omni Resort…a lush tropical setting and superior accommodations. It was hot as the devil–but it got up to 108 ° back here at home in NC while we were there, so I really can’t complain about it. The FSMTA meeting is huge. The organization has over 5000 members, and they had a great turnout.

In addition to working, we had plenty of socializing with friends old and new. I spent over an hour in conversation with Mike Williams, Executive Director of the NCBTMB and our interview will be appearing soon in a future blog. Our booth was right across from the NCBTMB booth so I spent a good bit of time chatting with Lori Ohlman and Donna Sarvello, and later Sue Toscano and Alexa Zaledonis. You may say whatever you like about the NCBTMB–it is staffed by great, dedicated people. Bruce Baltz of Bon Vital is also on the NCBTMB Board, and he gave me a great foot massage.

I spent some time with The Massage Nerd doing a few videos–I suspect they’ll be rolled out soon. Ryan Hoyme stayed busy doing videos for everyone present that wanted one. Since I was actually working, I had short visits with a lot of people instead of longer visits with a few people! Ruth Werner was there with her daughter Lily, as were Leslie Young Giase of Massage & Bodywork Magazine/ABMP and Paul Slomski, representing  the Massage Therapy Foundation. Pete Whitridge, Cherie Sohnen-Moe, and Iris Burman were there for the AFMTE; Kate Ivane Henri Zulaski and Cliff Korn were there for COMTA, and the FSMTB was represented…this is a big meeting, so all the major organizations were in attendance. Massage Today and Massage Magazine folks were there, too. Vivian Madison-Mahoney and her husband John, Leslie Lopez, Pat Donahue and her hubby Joe, Angie Patrick, Scott Dartnall, James Waslaski, Karen Kowal, David Kent, Anita Shannon, Lynda Solien-Wolfe, Michael McGillicuddy….too many people to name but it was like a reunion of some of the nicest and most dedicated people in massage, even when I only got to see them for a minute.

Champ and I attended the FB Meet and Greet…I always meet a few of my FB friends at those events, and it’s turned into such a popular thing that all the major conventions now have one.

Speaking of major conventions, the one glitch was the same that I have noticed at other conventions, and that’s vendors getting upset with the schedule and/or location. I’m not picking on FSMTA here, because something similar seems to happen wherever we go. The particular issue this time was that the vendor hall was slam full of people Thursday evening at 5 pm, and they shut down the vendors so the association could have a 2 hour business meeting. At other organization meetings I have attended, the hall was either so far removed from the mainstream that people practically had to walk a mile to get there, or the hours coincided with the times people are in class and not much over or above that. I encourage EVERY group who organizes a massage event, whether it’s small or large, to give these people a break! Booth space is usually expensive, especially at major events, and these folks go to a lot of expense and trouble to support your events. You need to support them. I’ve heard the suggestion several times that registration should be held IN the vendor hall so that attendees had to walk through it to register, and that’s not a bad idea. As I said, I’m not picking on FL. It is a problem at many places.

The FSMTA has been around since 1939 and has 15 chapters throughout the state. That’s a pretty big accomplishment. I was pleased to meet so many of their members. I had a great time at their meeting and plan to attend again.

Posted on

Behind Closed Doors

From the title, you might think this blog is about The Client List, the trashy new show on the Lifetime Channel that gives massage therapy a black eye. No such luck; the event I am referring to is the upcoming Leadership Summit #2, set to take place next week in Chicago.

The first Leadership Summit (to clarify: there were summits in 2003-04 before AFMTE and FSMTB existed) took place last September in St. Louis, with the executive directors and chairs of ABMP, AFMTE, AMTA, the Massage Therapy Foundation, FSMTB, COMTA, and NCBTMB in attendance. It was a historic event in that it was the first time all seven of these organizations had come together in the best interests of the profession. The purpose, according to the press release announcing the meeting, “was to hold a beginning conversation about major structural issues and impediments to profession progress. The desire is to have candid exchange about core challenges, quality concerns, consumer expectations and organizational roles.”

Apparently, one of the hot topics at this week’s meeting is going to be the number of required entry-level education hours. Although this was not on the agreed-upon agenda at the first meeting, it was introduced anyway by ABMP Chairman Bob Benson, complete with a thorough proposal prepared by Anne Williams, Director of Education at ABMP. Basically, the proposal was for a task force to be formed immediately, and using Job Task Analyses that have been conducted by the NCBTMB and the FSMTB, to nail down a definite number of hours that should be required for entry-level education. This was contrary to the facilitator’s recommendation—and the group’s agreement— that they would spend the initial meeting identifying problems, and would address possible solutions for these problems at meetings to follow.

In the interest of the leaders being comfortable in speaking freely, these are closed meetings—no press and no other staff members in attendance—an executive session, so to speak. Certainly not without precedent; boards have executive sessions all the time—usually to discuss personnel matters or other things that would violate someone’s privacy if they were discussed in public.

That’s not exactly the case here; and while I am thrilled that our leaders—some of whom are from competing organizations—are sitting down at the table together, my concern is that a small group of people has the power to decide (or worse, just think they have the power to decide), what is best for the profession on the whole, without getting input from the people it affects—you and me. Practitioners, school owners, teachers, CE providers, the regulatory community, all have a vested interest in the future of our profession, and I don’t think that should be decided by an exclusive group behind closed doors.

Unfortunately, that is just what the ABMP proposal states in no uncertain terms. Verbatim, Williams’ proposal stated: There is no step in this proposal to obtain input from the broader massage profession or from other health-care or bodywork organizations during this project. The reason is simple—the work group is simply performing a work task in writing learning outcomes and objectives for job tasks defined by surveys already conducted by FSMTB and NCBTMB. It doesn’t matter what stakeholders, or other groups think should be taught or shouldn’t be taught. The work group would be responding to what therapists report they do, on a day-to-day basis, in their massage-related environments as part of their jobs.

The sentence that disturbs me there is “It doesn’t matter what stakeholders, or other groups think should be taught or shouldn’t be taught.” Any time you start to think it doesn’t matter what stakeholders think, there’s a problem, in my humble opinion, no matter what the issue. Stakeholders are the ones it will affect, and to think their opinion isn’t important is just beyond the pale.

At the recent ABMP School Issues Forum in Austin, Texas, Bob Benson stated to those in attendance that there was 100% consensus in support of this standards-setting proposal from the organizations that attended the Leadership Summit. That’s not exactly so. COMTA, FSMTB, and AFMTE all expressed concerns after the proposal was introduced in September; they are not petty concerns, and they do not appear in any way to be based on politics or turf wars.
This is bad business for two primary reasons: First, any project that has the potential to affect the entire massage therapy profession should not be designed, approved, and launched in secret. Changing the baseline numbers of entry-level education required for state licensure is a huge thing, as it will affect schools, regulators, and future students.

By contrast, the MTBOK project modeled appropriate transparency, and the massage community had adequate opportunities for input along the way.

Second, it is more important right now that our primary stakeholder organizations learn to work together in an atmosphere of trust and cooperation—than to plunge headlong into a major problem-solving project when consensus has NOT been reached. The end does not justify the means. Some of my own issues are that the MTBOK and the competency-based curriculum standards set forth by COMTA aren’t even being given consideration. This proposal also overlooks the fact that the AFMTE is currently working on a National Teacher Standards Education Project. A huge amount of work has gone into creating both the MTBOK and the COMTA standards; a huge amount of work from some of the best educators in the business is going into the AFMTE project, and for these to be cast aside when they have direct relevance to this proposal is irresponsible to say the least.

During our troublesome economy of the past few years—and it doesn’t appear to be over yet—school owners have been seriously affected already, and having a nation-wide upheaval based on an “official” number of required hours is not the be-all end-all solution to licensing portability. It will just serve to put an additional burden into the mix at the present time. The lack of portability may be an irritant to our field, but it is not causing harm to the public.

The AMTA Board of Directors voted last October to support the project in its present form. As ABMP and AMTA are the two largest professional membership associations, they carry a big stick. That doesn’t mean their agendas should be force-fed to the profession, and I hope that they will reconsider both the timeline, and the very valid concerns raised by the other organizations before barging ahead with this project. I am certainly not saying that it never needs to happen. I am just saying it doesn’t need to happen on speed-dial until all of these issues have been ironed out. I hate to see good intentions canceled out by unchecked enthusiasm for rushing something to market; I hate to see valid concerns from the other organizations swept under the carpet; and I hate to see the opinion that what the stakeholders think doesn’t matter.

When you’re meeting behind closed doors, it’s easy to forget who the stakeholders are. I’m one of them. I’m a member of both AMTA and ABMP, a founding member of the AFMTE, a past delegate to the FSMTB, a Nationally Certified Massage Therapist & Bodyworker, an Approved Provider under the NCBTMB, and a current site reviewer for COMTA, so I do indeed have a vested interest. I don’t appreciate our national organizations acting as if my opinion and that of the other thousands of massage therapists, school owners, and others who enable your very existence on this planet don’t matter.

At this week’s Summit, the representatives of these seven organizations have an opportunity to address this issue that has divided the group, and to get their process back on track. I hope that they also remember the responsibility that they have to their own members, and to the profession as a whole. To use ABMP’s own slogan here, we “Expect More” from our leaders.

Posted on

MOCC Proposal: Dis-Organized Chaos

I’ve been criticizing the Maintenance of Core Competency (MOCC) proposal from the Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards since the moment it landed on my radar, and I haven’t changed my mind. I think it’s a terrible plan that doesn’t serve any good purpose other than increasing the coffers of the FSMTB. In its present form, it appears to be a blatant move to put the NCBTMB out of business.

What has been interesting to me is to see the way this thing has unfolded. Right off the bat, I had some criticism of the Task Force assembled by FSMTB that supposedly got this thing together. I say supposedly, because when I saw who was on it, my first thought was “No, they couldn’t possibly have supported that.”

So here we have Immediate Past President of AMTA, Glenath Moyle, whom I know personally and like a great deal. In spite of Moyle’s presence on the Task Force, the national office of AMTA only took a few days to come out with a statement shooting more than 20 holes in the MOCC proposal. In spite of the fact that the FSMTB chose Task Force members who were supposedly representatives of their respective organizations, that apparently didn’t work too well in this case.

AMTA has never allowed an individual officer to speak for the entire organization without their board’s approval; their blanket slam of the proposal seems to indicate that they never saw the proposal prior to publication, much less given the opportunity to sign off on it. I wholeheartedly support AMTA’s condemnation of this far-fetched plan, but I didn’t like to see Ms. Moyle in a position of looking like she had egg on her face. That could have been prevented if this process had been carried out in a more transparent manner.

Then we have Pete Whitridge and Cherie Sohnen-Moe, President and Board Member, respectively, of the Alliance for Massage Therapy Education. Since both of these leaders are well-known continuing education providers, and represent an organization that is largely composed of CE providers and massage schools that sponsor CE, I was shocked at their support of this plan. I felt at the time, and still feel, that if the membership of the AFMTE had been polled about this plan, the consensus would be a big fat NO.

The theory that this plan will not take away business from CE providers is BS of the highest order. Since the proposal calls for newly-created education modules that the FSMTB will put on their website to be the ONLY course work required for state license renewal – with all other CE related to “professional development” becoming optional – it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

The AFMTE issued a statement last week,that frankly, I feel should have been included in the proposal itself. I might have felt better about the whole thing if this was part of the original proposal. The AFMTE has suggested that they support the FSMTB contracting with the NCBTMB to administer the process of approving CE courses and providers, as that is beyond the resources and scope of most state massage therapy boards. The NCBTMB was excluded from the MOCC Task Force, which is petty politics to me. This plan affects them in a major way and they should have been included. They have expressed their willingness to work with the FSMTB, and frankly it’s the Federation that has prevented it from happening.

That doesn’t look good to me. When the NCBTMB convened a meeting of diverse stakeholders last year for the purpose of getting input into revamping their programs, they invited the FSMTB to participate. Their exclusion from the MOCC process is, I’m sure, based on the Federation’s party line, “the NCBTMB isn’t regulatory.” Big freaking deal. That is true, but they exist and for 20 years have administered the only national approval process for CE providers. AMTA, ABMP and AFMTE are not regulatory organizations and they were invited to serve on this Task Force. There were people on the Task Force from states that don’t even have any CE requirements to begin with. That dog don’t hunt, as we say in the South.

As the NCBTMB has announced their intent to sunset the existing National Certification program in favor of a post-graduate Board Certification credential, it is obvious that they are phasing themselves out of the entry-level market. At this point, they are not letting go of offering their National Certification Exams for state licensure purposes. However, that use of the cert exams is on a steady path of decline, as the MBLEx is now being used by the overwhelming majority of massage school grads. I think with some negotiation with the FSMTB, they would let it go altogether. The thing is, cooperation is only possible when both parties come to the table. The FSMTB isn’t playing nice.

There will need to be some skilled facilitation to get these organizations to look beyond their own interests, and to work together to achieve broad-based solutions. We need a single national approval program for continuing education, and our field will truly advance when there is just one entry-level exam for state licensure (instead of the current crop of five).

Every professional organization should take a lesson from some of the past troubles at the NCBTMB: all it takes is to get one or two people with a personal agenda in a position of power, and the fallout is detrimental to the organization and the profession on the whole. Board members have the responsibility of checks and balances. To those who sit on their hands and blindly follow the leader, I say get up or get off.

Posted on

Cheers and Jeers

I confess to being too lazy to be in depth with my blog this week. It’s Easter Sunday, and quite frankly I need a day of rest, so I’m just handing out a few cheers and jeers. There is usually a swirling sewer of legislation going on somewhere, and I’m sure today is no exception. AMTA keeps their finger on the pulse; you can read the latest here. ABMP also reports legislative updates; you can read them here under News and Information.

Cheers to Idaho for becoming the 44th state in the nation to license massage therapists. Beginning July 1 2013, all therapists will be required to have a license. There will be a two-year grandfathering period for therapists who meet certain qualifications. You can read the entire practice act here.

Cheers to COMTA (Commission on Massage Therapy Accreditation) for their improved website and their new online learning resources. Schools who are seeking accreditation, or thinking about doing so, can access a number of informational courses about the process. I started as a site reviewer for COMTA last year, and will be doing several site visits for them in the next few months. Seeking COMTA accreditation is a voluntary process that is rigorous–and sends a clear message for any school that you are doing more than you have to do.  I would encourage any school owner who wants to uphold standards of excellence to consider seeking COMTA accreditation. Part of the process is a very thorough self-study….it forces the question of “What could we be doing better?” The organization will bend over backwards in order to help you meet your goals.

Jeers to Lifetime television for The Client List, which debuts tonight. Cheers to ABMP and AMTA for contacting the producers of the show, for all the good that did, which was exactly none. Lifetime’s response is that they do not intend to show massage therapists in a bad light. If portraying a massage therapist as a prostitute isn’t casting a bad light on massage therapy, then I don’t know what is.

Jeers to the Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards for their recent proposal on Maintenance of Core Competencies.

Cheers to AMTA for shooting more than 20 holes in it.

Cheers to the Massage Therapy Foundation for their new and improved website.

Cheers to the NCBTMB for their new plan of action. It isn’t perfect but it’s a big step in the right direction.

That’s it from me this week. Even Laura Allen falls down on the job, and today’s the day. If you’d like to add a cheer or a jeer, feel free to do so in the comments. Everyone have a blessed Easter and a peaceful and prosperous week.

Posted on

NCBTMB: New Plans for the Future

The National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage & Bodywork has announced several bold new initiatives for moving the organization ahead. It’s no secret that the NCBTMB has had their ups and downs. The immediate past CEO, Paul Lindamood, had a lot to do with bringing them back from the brink of financial disaster that was caused partially by the MBLEx cutting drastically into their exam income, and partially by a previous administration that seemed hell-bent on bankrupting the organization. In a press release dated March 14, the organization outlined their new directions:

— Beginning in the first quarter of 2013, NCBTMB will end its existing National Certification credential, and will replace it with a new Board Certification credential. This will require passing the new Board Certification exam, which has Eligibility Requirements of 750 hours of education, 250 hours of hands on work experience and passing of a background check. Additional qualifications may be added, based on feedback from the profession. This will elevate the value of “certification” to a true post-graduate credential as opposed to the entry-level status it has held since its inception.

— In the summer of 2012, NCBTMB will launch a new online portal where all interaction with NCBTMB can be accomplished. including applications for all exams, recertification, approved providers, school reviews and payment for all NCBTMB services and products will be accomplished through this new portal. This will streamline their operations and cut down on the amount of time involved for all concerned.

— Beginning in the summer of 2012, NCBTMB’s continuing education approval program will also require courses to be vetted, along with CE providers. Providers will be required to submit their qualifications to teach each course. Previously, once a provider was approved, they could add on courses at will, which has caused some problems with people teaching subjects they are not truly qualified for. There has been some abuse as well concerning inappropriate course content, such as people creating a course just to sell a product they’ve invented. I attended last year’s meeting held by the NCBTMB for the purpose of gathering input and suggestions on how to improve the CE program, and vetting individual courses was at the top of the wish list. It’s good to see them listening and taking suggestions.

— Effective immediately, the current online practice exam is discontinued. In the summer of 2012, NCBTMB will launch a new online education resource offering thousands of questions to help candidates test their knowledge of many specific areas of practice. The old practice exam only had 65 questions, so this is a vast improvement for testing candidates.

— Licensing Exam. The NCETM and NCETMB, currently accepted for licensure in thirty-nine states, will be retained. The exam may now be taken at any time prior to graduation; however, formal notification will be released only upon proof of graduation from a minimum 500-hour massage therapy program. State licensing requirements are dictated by the individual states.  Since most of the existing massage licensing boards in the US have now joined the Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards, and the official line from that organization is to urge all states to exclusively adopt the MBLEx for licensing, this particular move keeps the waters a little muddy.

Since the creation of the Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards and the exploding popularity of the MBLEx, the NCBTMB has found themselves in a difficult position, and not just financially. For about 15 years or so, the exams from the NCBTMB were the sole path to licensure almost everywhere, except in a few states that had their own exam. In states that had no licensure, National Certification has been used as a credential to set educated and legitimate massage therapists apart from the “massage parlor” workers.

With only a few states left that aren’t regulated, most of which are working towards adopting regulations, the MBLEx will probably be used as the licensing exam if and when it does happen. The MBLEx is an entry-level licensing exam. By the NCBTMB’s own admission, the NESL exam they have used for licensing is the same exam they have used for certification–the only difference being the name of it– that has up to this point been a somewhat confusing state of affairs. The NCBTMB is currently seeking item writers and planning to beef up the new exam, so we’ll see which way that goes. In light of the new requirements for National Certification, I think it would make sense now for them to get out of the entry-level licensing game altogether and let the new credential truly mean an increase in value to those who seek a higher credential.

In a paper he authored in May 2011, The Optimal Role of National Certification in the Field of Massage Therapy, Rick Rosen, the co-founder and former Executive Director of the Alliance for Massage Therapy Education, stated the following:

….national certification at the entry level has been rendered unnecessary and redundant as a first credentialing step. To advance the field of massage therapy towards full professional status, NCBTMB must relinquish the task of entry-level credentialing to state licensing boards via the MBLEx. In place of its existing program, NCBTMB has an excellent opportunity to upgrade and repurpose what has been called “national certification” to a graduate-level credential. Decoupling certification from licensure would bring NCBTMB back to its original mission as the provider of a truly voluntary program that allows experienced practitioners to distinguish themselves through testing and demonstration of continued competence. That’s what certification was designed for.

Well, it’s great that NCBTMB has finally listened to what Rosen and other leaders in the field have been suggesting for a number of years.

I spoke with CEO Mike Williams and Board Chair Alexa Zaledonis last week to get a few questions answered, namely what has happened to the much-touted plan for an advanced certification. Williams and Zaledonis stated to me that the NCBTMB has cast aside their former plan for the N-CAP (Nationally Certified Advanced Practitioner) exam, based on negative feedback from the profession. I had personally been in favor of the N-CAP; however, I think the new credential is ultimately a much better solution. Another of Rosen’s statements, “Our field would benefit significantly from having a “generalist” credential that is available to massage therapists who have achieved a designated level of professional experience and continuing education beyond their foundational training,” seems to bear that out.

I don’t believe true licensing portability is ever going to happen in my lifetime. I am not sitting around holding my breath waiting for our organizations to all get together and sing Kum Ba Yah, although that would be nice. Turf wars are not a pretty sight, and the one between the NCBTMB and the FSMTB is no exception.  Both organizations have something to contribute, and they just need to get clear on what that is and to conduct themselves in a transparent and professional manner and in the spirit of what is good for the profession on the whole, not just what is financially lucrative for one organization. The recent MOCC proposal from the FSMTB that I have been reporting on recently would be financially lucrative for them, and that’s the only good thing I can say about it. To ignore the organization that has administered most of the continuing education for massage therapists in the country for the past 20 years is a political move that is, in my opinion, aimed at taking more money from the NCBTMB in the hopes of eventually crippling them altogether.

I remember the dark days when I had to report on the shenanigans of some of the previous leaders of the NCBTMB, and the Federation seems to be forcing me to do the same to them with some of their recent actions. I was gratified last week to see AMTA shoot down the MOCC proposal on more than 20 points, while ABMP President Les Sweeney spoke out in favor of it. It will be interesting to see if they have a response to this new plan from the NCBTMB.

Posted on

MOCC-ERY

Last week, the Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards presented their long-awaited proposal for a new national continuing education approval program. They are calling it Maintenance of Core Competencies – or MOCC for short. As I indicated in my previous post, this proposal not only failed to deliver on the original promises made by FSMTB, it has turned the entire professional landscape on its ear by recommending that most continuing education should be voluntary, not mandatory for license renewal.

Under this “MOCC-ERY” of a plan, the only mandatory components of continuing education would be those FSMTB deems to be relevant to “public safety”. If that’s not bad enough, FSMTB is proposing to take control over the design and delivery of these courses. Except it isn’t continuing education … it’s proving that you still know the things you should have learned in entry-level massage training as it pertains to protection of the public.

As a licensed therapist, do you want to be taken back to subjects like Ethics 101, principles of hygiene and sanitation, and the naming of unsafe massage practices – EVERY TIME YOU HAVE TO RENEW YOUR LICENSE? I’ve been teaching professional ethics for 14 years, and frankly, I find this proposal to be an insult to my intelligence.

I was very gratified today to receive the press release from AMTA denouncing the plan. In part, important communication states:

“AMTA reviewed the proposal and has many concerns with the approach of the FSMTB, the proposal itself, its inconsistencies and the lack of support provided for their view. Some of our specific areas of concern are:

  • –Overall, the impact of this proposal is to lower standards for massage therapy practice. It would shift the focus of professional development from building on the entry level education massage therapists receive to that of maintaining very minimal requirements of public protection.
  • –The proposal contradicts its stated intent, previous FSMTB statements on the need for continuing professional education and the mission of FSMTB.
  • –The proposal would take away the freedom of choice of massage therapists to determine their own practice focus and to choose the continuing education providers they prefer to meet their own professional needs by creating a “one-size-fits-all” approach for license renewal.
  • –The proposal provides no empirical data to support the efficacy, efficiency or necessity for a transition to this model.”

AMTA goes on to list 20 objections in their press release.

Although ABMP as an organization has not yet made an official statement, ABMP President Les Sweeney came out in support of the MOCC Proposal in his recent blog. In addition to being a member of AMTA, I am also a member of ABMP. I think highly of Les and the rest of the management there, but this is one of those times when we’ll have to agree to disagree. Les does state that he supports the role of the NCBTMB in the arena of continuing education; but he personally thinks CE should be voluntary. That is a major policy statement coming from the top guy at the largest professional membership association in our field.

The thing that is most outrageous and unacceptable about the MOCC Proposal is not the “public protection” course material that could be mandatory for therapists. It is the fact that leaders of four of our major stakeholder organizations in the field came together behind closed doors and decided that the majority of continuing education should no longer be mandatory.

It looks like there may have been major flaws in the process that led to this consensus document. Was the work of the eight-member Task Force shared with the full leadership of AMTA, ABMP, AFMTE and FSMTB with sufficient time to review and comment on this plan before it was published? Something doesn’t line up when AMTA comes out with a total smackdown of the plan, while their Immediate Past President was part of the team that was responsible for its development. Does that seem odd to you?

What we do know is that the decision making process took place in a vacuum, and there was no opportunity for public comment. Yes, the disclaimer says that “The MOCC is just a proposal and we’re seeking your feedback”, but input should have been sought from a broad range of constituents in the field before such a proposal was even made.

Continuing education classes that actually teach you anything new, under their plan, will become optional. Only the classes from the Federation, which they plan to make available on their website, will be required for license renewal. My opinion is that instead of being satisfied that the MBLEx has taken most of the exam revenue away from the NCBTMB, they would now like to take the continuing education dollars away, too. This plan will not only take dollars away from the NCBTMB, but also away from continuing education providers. (Disclosure: I am an NCBTMB Approved Provider of Continuing Education.)

The Task Force intentionally excluded representatives from the NCBTMB, and that’s another point that disturbs me. The Federation should be working in collaboration with NCBTMB. I was present at the AFMTE 2011 Annual Conference during FSMTB Executive Director Debra Persinger’s initial presentation about the Federation’s intent to create a CE approval program. NCBTMB Chair Alexa Zaledonis was in the audience at this session, and she publicly stated that her organization was willing to cooperate with FSMTB. It’s a shame to me that in light of their 20 years of experience in administering CE provider approvals, they are being left out of this loop. I’m gratified to see they’re not waiting around for an invitation, but instead, have gotten on with the business of making their own improvements.

In May 2011, NCBTMB convened a meeting of the Massage Approved Provider Panel, which was intended to improve and enhance their current CE approval program. Most of the stakeholder organizations in the field were represented there, including FSMTB. Based on feedback from the participants, NCBTMB will begin reviewing and approving CE courses as well as CE providers this summer.

Personally, I did learn what I needed to know about protection of the public while I was in massage school. I am one of those people who enjoy attending continuing education courses. I don’t want it to be mandated to me that I have to take a no-fail test—which isn’t really a test if you can’t fail it, is it, of things that I already know—to meet my license renewal requirements. I don’t think that serves me, as a massage therapist, and I can’t see how it’s going to serve the public. The Federation seems to think this will wipe out complaints of unethical or unsafe behavior. I don’t believe that for one minute. Anyone who is going to act unethically is going to do it, no matter how many classes they take or whom they take them from. Unsafe behavior needs to be addressed in entry-level massage school. I would much prefer to see the FSMTB come up with a model program of public safety education for schools, instead of requiring therapists who have been practicing for years to take a ridiculous no-fail test.

Times are changing, as Les said in his blog, and our organizations are changing with them. It remains to be seen whether it’s for the better or the worse. I have supported the FSMTB in the past, because I believe the state boards coming together in an effort to solve common problems is a good thing. I still believe that’s a good thing. Unfortunately, I do not believe that this is an example of the kind work they should be doing, or the way they should be doing it. You can let them know how you feel about it here.

Posted on

FSMTB Unveils Plan for Continuing Education

Last week, the Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards published a document outlining their proposal to jump into the continuing education market. They are calling the new program Maintenance of Core Competency – to be abbreviated as “MOCC”. I don’t know what planet this thing came from, but it sure ain’t from this solar system.

Coming fast on the heels of the unresolved conflict-of-interest mess with the FSMTB President spearheading legislation in her home state of Iowa that would eliminate the education hours from that massage law, the timing of this MOCC release is strange, to say the least.

But let me get to the main event here: When you have a problem on your hands, there’s nothing more aggravating than a solution that is worse than the original problem itself. That’s exactly what has happened.

For many years, those of us who teach continuing education courses, as well as the sponsors of continuing education, have had to put up with an absurd and ineffective system for CE approvals. Most regulated professions have a single national entity that handles this function; we have the national provider approval program run by NCBTMB, as well as individual approval processes operated by about 10 state massage boards. The standards are inconsistent, and it forces CE providers to go through redundant and costly approval processes to be able to offer their courses in more than one location.

There was a cause for hope when we started to see some activity about this last year at the national level. In a press release entitled “FSMTB to Establish New Continuing Education Approval Program” (dated March 29, 2011), the organization announced:

“…the launch of a project to develop a new national program for the approval of both continuing education courses and providers. Once it is established, the program will provide state regulatory agencies with a centralized quality assurance process for all courses taken by massage and bodywork therapists for the renewal of State licensure or State certification.

As the representative for the regulatory community, FSMTB has responded to requests from its Member Boards to create a unified system to ensure that continuing education courses are taught by qualified instructors, relevant to the scope of practice, and meet the needs of the regulatory community.”

This all sounds wonderful, but the MOCC Proposal does not resemble this in any way. What happened to FSMTB’s clearly stated plan?

The MOCC Proposal introduces a totally new concept to our field: that there is a limited group of subjects that are specific to the “core competence” of massage therapists, such as ethics and boundaries, hygiene and sanitation, scope of practice, and unsafe massage practices. These subjects are supposed to be more important to “public safety” than all the other subjects typically studied by massage therapists in CE seminars – which are lumped into a new category called “professional enhancement”.

Based on this concept, the MOCC Proposal makes three recommendations:

1) Requirements for the renewal of state licensure should focus on public protection and maintenance of core competencies. All therapists should complete a required educational program for re-licensure focused on public safety issues. FSMTB would be the provider of this educational program.

2) A transition phase addressing maintenance of core competence as well as current continuing education for professional enhancement will be needed. FSMTB will provide state massage boards with guidelines to assist in the transition phase.

3) After this transition phase, professional enhancement and continuing education is voluntarily attained at the discretion of the therapist and not mandated for licensure renewal.

Instead of working to get broad-spectrum CE mandated for license renewals in all states, the MOCC Proposal recommends doing the opposite. In light of the relatively low number of education hours to enter our field, CE is essential to help practitioners continue to build and strengthen their base of theory and methodology. The narrow scope of “core competencies” suggested in the proposal as the only mandatory elements for renewal do little or nothing to advance levels of skill and awareness of the craft. While looking into how some of the other associations and federations of state regulatory boards of licensed professions handle their CE approval process, I did not locate a single one that imposes a limitation to “public protection” on continuing education the way the FSMTB is proposing to do.

The proposal also contains a statement that, “It is important to the FSMTB that all stakeholders have a voice in the process. The FSMTB requests feedback on this proposal from the Massage and Bodywork community and other interested parties.”

That’s a very open-sounding invitation, but does it strike you as odd that the MOCC Proposal makes no mention whatsoever of NCBTMB and the Approved CE Provider program they’ve been operating for the past 20 years? I would consider NCBTMB a stakeholder – and I’m relatively certain they’re an interested party. Last May, a rep from FSMTB attended the multi-stakeholder summit held by NCBTMB that looked at improving their CE approval program; it doesn’t appear that the invitation was reciprocated.

As I see it, the recommendations contained in the MOCC Proposal will drive the two organizations further apart, and will make it impossible for a global solution to be developed. This is both foolish and unacceptable. There is general support for continuing education being tied to license renewal, as it benefits both practitioners and their clients. Ongoing coursework in certain key subjects (like ethics) can continue to be written into state standards to ensure that licensees stay current with the behavioral aspects that influence their work.

If we’re going to have a single entity handling CE approvals on behalf of the entire profession, which should it be: FSMTB or NCBTMB? In reality, it could be either one – but it would take new levels of cooperation, along with well-crafted agreements to satisfy all the legal and structural considerations. Creating a unified approval program should be the focal point of discussions between and among the major stakeholders in this arena. Anything else is a waste of time.

When it comes down to it, FSMTB is a collective of the state regulatory boards; it has no regulatory authority in and of itself. They cannot force this plan on any state that doesn’t want it. Any state approving their own providers will be free to carry on, and any state that wants to continue to accept courses taught by the NCBTMB-Approved Providers will be free to carry on. The MOCC Proposal states that another document will be forthcoming that details recommended standards for states that choose to continue their own approval process.

As mentioned above, this is currently just a proposal and FSMTB is seeking feedback. I definitely encourage you to give it to them. Click this link.