|
ABMP Legislative Report
Thank you for consideration of these views. I would be pleased to discuss any of the specifics with a representative from your office. My telephone is 800-458-2267 extension 614. I will be posting these comments on the members-only section of our Website www.abmp.com. We will also send a blast e-mail to the 200 affected members encouraging them to visit the Website and to express their own views at the May 10 hearing. You likely will not see many of them there: attendance at a 10:30 a.m. hearing on a Thursday means sacrificing income from client sessions on a strong day for business.
4. Multiple entry tracks to obtaining a certification, mirroring widely differing massage education patterns in California. Through 2008, individuals could with 500 education hours qualify as a Massage Therapist, with 250 education hours qualify as a Massage Practitioner, or, under grandfathering, with 100 education hours plus sufficient cumulative hours of hands-on practice, qualify as a Massage Practitioner. From 2009 through 2012, individuals could qualify for certification via either of the first two of these three routes. After 2012, only those completing 500 education hours could qualify. 5. Acceptable scope/definition of massage therapy ... despite efforts by chiropractic and physical therapy organizations to force a narrowing of scope from what massage therapists perform today. (As noted above, the definition now in the bill is satisfactory, but the California Chiropractic Association and the Physical Therapists still seek a change.) Click here for current definition language. 6. Exemptions from the law secured as requested for practitioners of movement education, energy balancing and other non-massage modalities in which any soft tissue manipulation is incidental to their practice. 7. Composition of MTO will have massage therapists in majority status, enhancing the potential to later add more board representatives from the massage community. 8. No requirement to pass any national examination in order to obtain a certification. 9. “One-stop shopping” for fingerprinting/criminal background check. No duplicate fees or application paperwork. No more STD or other health-related testing. 10. For consumers, raising the entry bar to a minimum of 250 education hours, including at least 100 hours in specified safety/anatomy/boundary subject areas, all from a single approved school, will provide comfort about massage practitioners’ knowledge and preparedness. ***** On the other side of the ledger, three aspects of the legislation are disappointing. First, ABMP would prefer the creation of a state licensing board, part of and accountable to state government (the model used in other states which license massage therapists), rather than a private MTO created by the state but not actually a state agency. The powers of a private MTO to enforce its decisions and sanction unacceptable behaviors may well prove less clear cut. Secondly, grandfathering provisions (affecting current practitioners with fewer than 250 massage education hours) are less generous than what ABMP sought. Our dogged efforts did achieve improvements from earlier bill versions, but we fought unsuccessfully for a 700 hour experience requirement rather than the three years of practice/1,000 hands-on hours of work requirement in the bill. As a practical matter, should the bill become law, many affected individuals would likely add education hours to get up to 250 hours by the end of 2008. Finally, ABMP had worked closely with the California Alliance of Massage and Bodywork Schools (CAMBS) to develop and support an amendment to retain 250 education hours as an allowable profession entry point after December 2012, with the proviso that someone entering after that date would have to secure an additional 50 education hours each year until their total reaches 500 hours. Because CAMBS and ABMP were not successful in selling this proposal, CAMBS formally chose to oppose SB 412. ABMP shares their disappointment, but reaches a different conclusion about whether to, as a result, oppose the bill. Central to our thinking is the fact that the entire bill sunsets on December 31, 2012. The MTO is mandated to provide the legislature by September 1, 2011 a report on the law’s impacts. Subsequent hearings will provide a fresh opportunity to argue for continuation of a 250 hour entry point if experience warrants it. ***** Thank you for considering our views. Should the bill become law, we will be sending guidance to each California member via regular mail. The soonest possible date the MTO would be allowed to accept applications is July 1, 2007, so you have some time to plan and prepare. Sincerely, Bob Benson Chairman 08/04/06: Petition for Chair Massage in Santa Monica Print and share this petition with clients and colleagues. Send completed petitions to: Mark Hooker 511 Raymond Avenue #3 Santa Monica, CA 90405 06/09/06: An updated version of California’s massage legislation (SB 412), just released, addresses the definition of “massage,” the grandfathering provisions for individuals with fewer than 250 hours of massage education, and city requirements. Please click on the link below for details of the legislation and how California practitioners can voice their opinion on this matter before the legislative session adjourns in August. This link contains:
12/06/05: Proposed changes to California massage legislation (SB 412) could greatly affect massage practitioners in that state. California practitioners are asked to voice their opinion on this vital matter. Please click on the links below for details. Summary and call to action from ABMP President Bob Benson A description of proposed amendments for eligibility rules and time frames A summary of perceived attractive and unattractive features of the proposed bill The full, 11-page, unofficial draft legislation for “SB 412 Features” 09/08/05: ABMP has worked hard over the year to maintain support for SB 412 (Senator Figueroa). (View a current version of the bill.) At this time, the bill has morphed from a licensing bill to a voluntary certification bill. This is largely due to the reluctance of the current administration to authorize the creation of a new bureau, board, or commission. For this reason, as well as those stated below, the bill’s author has decided to park it until January 2006. It has become a ‘two-year bill.’ As such, the progress already made -- passage in the Joint Sunrise Committee, Senate Business and Professions Committee, Senate Appropriations, the full Senate, and Assembly Business and Professions -- is retained. To become law, the bill will need to be approved in 2006 by Assembly Appropriations and the full Assembly, then the amended version needs to return to the full Senate for approval, and finally consideration by the Governor. Attainment of these steps is not assured. Why is the bill now parked? In essence, the author concluded SB 412 needs support by the cities and counties if it is to have a chance of getting through those final four steps. City, county, and police organizations have recently expressed specific concerns with the bill and would like to work with ABMP, AMTA, and the author to find solutions. They concluded that their organizations required more time to work out concerns and build support. The Executive Director of the California League of Cities is personally committed to seeking resolution of their concerns and will work steadily toward finding agreement starting in the final 10 days of September. She has earned great credibility within her organization and seems to grasp the inequity of massage therapists’ current plight when practicing in multiple jurisdictions. That doesn’t guarantee League support, but it represents the best possible way for the massage community to partner with that organization. In reality, three parallel negotiations will be going on in coming weeks -- with the author’s staff over grandfathering provisions, with chiropractic and physical therapy organizations over scope of practice as well as other issues, and of course also with the cities. The aim is for most of the parties to agree upon revised contents and to have an amended bill ready for the Assembly Appropriations Committee to consider in early January. Initial proposals from the physical therapy and chiropractic organizations to amend the bill were not acceptable to the bill’s key supporters. We have subsequently made some progress. At the moment, we are negotiating language with chiropractic representatives. We are hopeful we can come to some resolution with our chiropractic colleagues and garner their support for the bill as it progresses. Unfortunately, our talks with the physical therapists have not been as productive. We are eager to re-engage this association in the next month. As to grandfathering, ABMP believes the current bill proposals are too demanding. Requiring someone with fewer than 250 hours of education to show proof of having performed at least 400 hours of massage for compensation during each of the previous five years would be difficult. Many individuals have built “just right for them” massage practices involving a commitment of closer to 200-300 hours of hands-on massage a year, often combined with other employment outside the massage field. And many ABMP members take off a year or two from massage in connection with a household move, childbirth, care for young children, helping an ailing family member, or other reasons. Such individuals could not satisfy the five-consecutive-years test and thus would be thrust into substantial required additional massage education. We are working to soften these grandfathering provisions. At some point over the next four weeks we may ask that you share your views about these grandfathering provisions with the author’s office. It will be important for our members to voice their perspectives as this bill is considered. For those of you whom we have e-mail addresses on file, we will alert you by e-mail. For those of you whom we don’t have e-mail addresses, please watch www.abmp.com for the initial call to action. If you would like to provide us with your e-mail address to ensure you receive legislative notices, simply go to www.abmp.com and log in to the Members section. There, you can select the option to update your contact information, including your e-mail address. Thanks as always for your continuing interest and support. View a current version of the SB 412. 06/30/05: By a vote of 6-3 (a minimum of 6 favorable votes was required for it to pass), an amended version of SB 416 (Figueroa) was approved by the Assembly Business and Professions Committee on June 28. Absent strong support from Committee Chair Gloria Negrete-McLeod and intensive lobbying by your Foley & Lardner representatives, it is doubtful there would have been a favorable committee vote. The crucial last favorable vote came from Assemblyman Juan Vargas (D - San Diego) who decided to support his Committee Chair and resisted pressure from several lobbyists opposing the bill. No Republicans supported the bill, all of them citing concerns about the principle of shifting responsibility from local to statewide level. The amendments included were initial amendments drafted by Bill Gage, principal staff representative for bill author Senator Liz Figueroa. Some were technical in nature. Others added provisions for grandfathering and some beginning delineation of the make-up and responsibilities of the massage organization which would be created by the legislation. Prior to the Assembly Committee meeting, ABMP had already changed its stance on SB 412 from “Support” to “Support, if amended” and had asked for changes in four areas. Notable among our requests were additional flexibility in grandfathering provisions, a revision of the makeup of the initial massage organization board to ensure that massage therapists constitute a majority on that board, and some language assuring that licensing fees reasonably relate to actual costs. These suggestions are already under active consideration. We anticipate some resulting amendment changes will occur before the next bill hearing. That next hearing will be in mid-August before the Assembly Appropriations Committee. In the interim, we anticipate active exchange with representatives of chiropractors, physical therapists, cities and counties. Over the past two years, those organizations have been involved to varying degrees in monitoring and voicing opinions on emerging massage licensing legislation. However, none of them have to date made specific proposals for revising language in the massage bill. Many on the opposing side, instead, have asked that the massage bill become a two-year bill, not moving forward until late next year. That still could happen, but with five of the seven initial vote hurdles surmounted, these other organizations now are likely to enter into more specific discussions. How those discussions proceed will have a lot to do with whether the massage bill actually makes it to the governor’s desk in 2005. Because this legislation is in a phase of rapid evolution, it has become impractical to survey ABMP’s entire California membership. Instead we are working closely with about two dozen ABMP members, representing a broad cross-section of education backgrounds and practice choices, who have volunteered to help out in this legislative process. Should there become a purpose to be served by broad voicing of support or opposition to the further evolving bill, we will send out a broader clarion call for assistance. 06/03/05: The full Senate approved SB 412 by a vote of 28-11 on May 31. The bill is now being held, pending drafting of proposed amendments for Assembly consideration. If consensus emerges among various interested parties, the bill will likely be sent to the Assembly later this month. ABMP staff remains actively involved in the language drafting process. 04/29/05: The Senate Committee on Business, Professions & Economic Development voted in support of SB 412 on April 25. The 4:1 favorable vote was sufficient to send the proposal on, first for review of fiscal impact, and, assuming a favorable vote there, for consideration by the full Senate. Bob Benson will be back in Sacramento May 5 for a working meeting with Senate staff aimed at seeking amendments and additions to SB 412 to address most of the issues described in the previous posting. 04/20/05: At an April 12 hearing the Joint Committee on Boards, Commissions and Consumer Protection voted to recommend “that regulation of massage therapists should be shifted from the current local jurisdiction approach to a state-based approach to provide for more uniform standards.” This was the result of their consideration of Sunrise documents submitted over a year ago as well as public testimony on January 6. On our members’ behalf, ABMP both submitted a Sunrise document and testified in January. This week, under the authorship of Senator Liz Figueroa, its chair, the Senate Business & Professions Committee has drafted and published an initial massage licensing bill, SB 412, starting to put flesh and bones detail on the Joint Committee’s recommendation. Brief public testimony on SB 412 will occur on April 25. ABMP again will be a participant. At this point I would characterize SB 412 as an unevenly formed skeleton. For the most part, those issues addressed borrow generously from the detailed proposals worked out previously by a coalition of individuals from the massage community including ABMP leadership. Topics include a thoughtful definition of “massage,” a focus on “approved schools,” and a clear statement that state massage regulation would pre-empt (replace) local massage professional licensing. Most important, SB 412 embraces verbatim the language from the massage community bill regarding establishment of two tiers - one for “massage practitioners” requiring at least 250 hours of massage education, the other for “massage therapists” requiring at least 500 education hours. Also adopted was our recommendation that the core 250 hour curriculum must include at least 100 hours in total addressing anatomy and physiology, contraindications, health and hygiene, and business and ethics. What is frustrating, after many hours of negotiation and drafting within the massage and bodywork community, is that a number of areas we worked carefully through aren’t even addressed in this initial skeletal bill draft. Most notable is grandfathering - routes to approval eligibility for thousands of practitioners who in good faith earlier secured the massage education available in their community, though those programs may not have added up to 250 classroom hours. Another area not addressed is exemptions from the proposed law for practitioners of certain specified modalities which are not massage but are sometimes assumed to be so by the public. Also, limits on license fee amounts, which we carefully worked out, are not mentioned. Further, as currently drafted, the bill would be a title protection act only and would lead to a certificate rather than a license. Individuals could still practice without a certificate, which will sound good to some, but that would leave them still subject to city licensing regulations. That leaves a mess for cities and confusion for the public. Careful thought about these choices has led 30 of the 34 states with massage licensing to adopt so-called “practice acts” (which prohibit the practice of massage without a license) rather than title protection only. SB 412 also includes a whole new wrinkle regarding the entity which would be responsible for administering the issuance of massage licenses and enforcement of its rules. The Committee is proposing, in lieu of a state massage board, a private, non-profit massage profession group be created to undertake these responsibilities. It’s referred to as a “Massage Therapy Organization” in the bill. It remains most unclear how that body would become constituted, what its enforcement and disciplinary powers would be, and whether cities and counties would accept its authority. ABMP needs to see a lot more detail and receive a lot of effective persuasion before generating enthusiasm about this approach. ABMP does plan to speak in support of SB 412 at the April 25 hearing, while noting the bill’s incompleteness, suggesting its wrong-headedness in some areas, and requesting an opportunity for further input. Why are we doing so? The legislative calendar requires that, to stay alive for this session, a bill must have its initial policy hearing and receive a favorable committee vote by next week. Committee staff is well aware that the first draft of SB 412 has a number of holes in it. They know, for example, that grandfathering needs to be addressed. Accordingly, ABMP intends to voice support for the bill now in order to have a vehicle to work on and improve during the next four months. For now, we aren’t asking members to contact legislators. If signals switch, and further bill drafting heads in an unattractive direction, we will use this Website to alert you and ask you to make comments to designated representatives. If it comes to that, your willingness to take action will be highly important. 04/11/05: City of Murrieta: ABMP has been working with the Police Department of this city to revise the language for licensure qualifications for massage therapists. The ordinance no longer states, "Provide proof of training in excess of 500 hours from a school that is certified by the American Massage Therapy Association." Please click here for the revised ordinance. If you have any questions do not hesitate to contact the Murrieta police department. 03/04/05: ABMP, supported by the Sacramento-based firm of Foley & Lardner, worked throughout 2004 to refine and improve the state licensing bill originally introduced in 2003. Notable improvements were agreed on by various parties in the detailing of education requirements for licensure. Preliminary discussions were also held with key legislative committees, the Department of Consumer Affairs, and various private organizations with an interest in a massage bill. A Sunrise hearing, chaired by Senator Liz Figueroa (D-Fremont), the first step in a process to introduce state regulation for a profession, was held on January 6 to examine whether state licensing of massage therapy made sense. Senator Figueroa also serves as chair of the Senate Business & Professions Committee, which ultimately will hear any massage bill. More than 20 individuals spoke at the hearing, including Bob Benson, president of ABMP. Most of the individuals testified about the haphazard regulatory landscape most massage therapists must work with in California, driving home the need for a single statewide set of licensure requirements. The Sunrise committee's recommendations are not expected to be published until late March. At that point, they will be translated into bill language, hopefully incorporating large portions of what has been worked out during the past year within the massage community. We anticipate a busy spring, focusing our lobbying efforts toward influencing the contents of the bill development. Until we see what emerges from committee, it's premature to know whether it will be a bill most ABMP members will feel comfortable rallying around. 08/27/04: California Legislation Update By Bob Benson, ABMP President You haven't heard much lately about California legislative developments because we really meant it when we noted last February that AMTA had cost the effort a year's delay by not displaying sufficient urgency during the final six months of 2003. The calendar now calls for an initial sunrise hearing in late November or early December 2004. If that hearing has a successful outcome, formal legislation will be introduced in January 2005 and will work its way through the legislative process between then and August. Though the slow pace of the past nine months has been frustrating, ABMP has used the time constructively. You are being well served by the lobbyist organization we retained, Foley and Lardner; they are clear about our objectives and we are working well together. In April I completed a more robust ABMP version of a sunrise document for massage licensing. Foley and Lardner filed the 48 page (plus 11 addenda) document with the Business & Professions committees of both legislative bodies. Since then, we met and worked with the California Alliance of Massage & Bodywork Schools (CAMBS); that group subsequently developed a number of thoughtful proposed refinements to AB 1388. In late July, we combined with AMTA leadership to meet with representatives from the Department of Consumer Affairs, the two aforementioned B&P committees, the California Chiropractic Association, the California Association of Private Postsecondary Schools (CAPPS), and CAMBS. During the past few weeks, we identified 14 pivotal legislators and have been recruiting ABMP members in their legislative districts to seek out meetings in September in those target legislators' district offices. At this point, the focus is upon acquainting these legislators with the general problem of a serious, health enhancing profession being regulated piecemeal by local governments, often under the presumption that massage is a soft sounding cover name for unsavory activity. We are not asking these volunteers to get into any specific legislative details during these initial meetings. The fate of proposed new state licensing for massage therapy remains unclear, especially in the light of the new Governor going on the warpath to try to eliminate boards and commissions. Nonetheless, based upon substantial ABMP membership support for the concept of state licensing, we aim to try to push the idea forward. Bob Benson 02/09/04: California Legislation Update By Bob Benson, ABMP President Originally mailed to all ABMP California members, February 9, 2004 Because news of possible statewide massage licensing changes quickly, we felt it necessary to issue this report To review, ABMP over the past 18 months solicited member views via two questionnaires, an e-mail survey, and a series of town meetings. Once growth in member support for statewide licensure became apparent, we participated in a coalition of massage leaders to draft a bill. Like all coalition efforts, the product isn't viewed as perfect by any participant, but we believe it meets the diverse interests of the vast majority of ABMP California members. Though legislative initiatives can move quickly, at other times progress seems glacial. ABMP's approach in 2003 was governed by "There's a growing problem with patchwork, inconsistent local regulation, but our support for state licensing is dependent on the contents of a proposed bill." From April on we urged a rapid pace of coalition drafting work so as to allow time to enact a bill in early 2004, assuming a good bill did emerge from the drafting process. Today we know bill enactment is not going to happen then or even later in 2004. At earliest, figure enactment in the first half of 2005 with a probable effective date sometime in 2006. What happened? The massage-licensing vehicle, AB 1388, had been introduced by Assemblymember Christine Kehoe at the behest of the California chapter of the AMTA. That was the bill our coalition sought to flesh out and improve. Some other committee members did not share ABMP's desire for a quick drafting pace. Until November, the AMTA chapter also would not share the contents of a companion sunrise document they had drafted. Absent finished, agreed upon bill language to show to other interested parties, the AMTA's lobbyist did not gain enough traction with cities and other health care professions. By mid-December when I visited Sacramento to retain a lobbyist for ABMP, it became apparent the bill support-gathering process simply wasn't far enough along to be enacted in 2004. Where We Are Assemblywoman Kehoe has now concluded that preparatory work on a massage licensing bill is too far behind schedule to push for 2004 enactment. Kehoe delivered realistic news and made clear she would not support any half-ready approach. ABMP hired Foley & Lardner to represent our members' interests. AMTA has now changed lobbying firms. Kehoe suggests holding an informational hearing in March or April before the Assembly Business and Professions Committee to allow all interested parties to voice support for or concerns with proposed massage legislation. Click here to view the current consensus version of AB 1388, found on www.abmp.com. For the most part, what emerged was what we forecast to you in our August 2003 communication. Highlights are: · Pre-emption of local massage licensing rules. (Once a state law becomes effective, you no longer would have to pay fees to obtain a local massage practitioner license, though you still would be subject to local zoning rules and standard permit requirements applicable to all types of businesses.) · Two tiers, a Practitioner tier requiring 250 hours of education and a Therapist tier requiring 500 hours of education. · No requirement to pass the NCE or any other national exam. · Reasonable state licensing fees: a $50 one-time initial application fee, then a $100 license fee every two years. · A requirement to secure at least 24 hours of continuing education every two years once licenses are issued. More specifically as to qualifications to obtain a license: New School Graduates in 2007 & Beyond "Practitioner": Complete at least 250 hours of massage or bodywork education from a single school approved by the BPPVE or an approved community college. "Therapist": Complete at least 500 hours of massage or bodywork education, at least half satisfying the above criteria; or Pass a certification exam approved by the newly created Massage Board; or Satisfy the board that you have a sufficient combination of experience and additional education hours beyond 250 to warrant designation at the Therapist level. The Board will have discretion to establish rules and criteria. Current Practitioners and Others Graduating in 2004, 2005 or 2006 If you meet one of the above criteria, you qualify at the appropriate tier level. In addition, grandfathering provisions assure that you can obtain and subsequently continue to renew a Practitioner license if you satisfy any one of the following criteria: · You hold a valid massage permit or license from a California city or county; or · You can document having completed at least a 100-hour course in massage at a state-approved or registered school and of having provided at least 250 hours of massage to members of the public for compensation; or · You can document having provided, prior to January 1, 2005, at least 500 hours of massage to members of the public for compensation. What's Next As further fair warning for those of you who wish to see a state licensing bill become law, ABMP likely will be soliciting e-mails and letters to legislators on at least a couple occasions in 2004 and early 2005. Stay tuned and meanwhile please keep current your e-mail address on file with ABMP. Sincerely, Bob Benson President 12/23/03: ABMP Prepares for California Legislative Process ABMP has retained the firm of Foley and Lardner to represent our members' interests as prospective massage licensing bill now begins serious consideration in the legislature. Until now, the focus of conversation has been within the massage community - first exploring whether it was timely to consider statewide licensing, then examining where consensus might be obtained on key issues, and finally negotiating with others in the profession on specifics of a possible California law. ABMP's leaders have been personally involved in each of these steps, from designing questionnaires, to holding membership town meetings, to forming our key principles, and finally by serving as two members of an eight-person group that negotiated a proposed piece of legislation. Now the process transitions. An amended version of AB 1388 is expected to be formally published in early January. That bill will be carefully considered by civic leaders, physical therapists, chiropractors, the massage therapy and bodywork community and other interested parties. Views will be offered. Differences will be negotiated. "The stakes are important enough for ABMP members that it is time to retain counsel experienced in the ways of legislative development," says Bob Benson, president of ABMP. George Steffes, director of public affairs for Foley and Lardner, will head the team retained by ABMP. For four decades, Mr. Steffes has been part of the California political scene, including starting the capital's first multi-person lobbying practice. Also part of the team are Judith Wolen and Kathryn Scott, both of whom have substantial healthcare experience. Foley and Lardner recently played pivotal roles in the shaping of SB 577, the landmark health freedom bill and establishment of licensing for naturopaths. "We wholly understand that ABMP's diverse California membership is not of a single mind on the value or contents of statewide licensure," Benson says. But a substantial consensus has developed in favor of licensure if a bill contains several key features: . Pre-emption of local massage licensing rules. . Two tiers, a Practitioner tier requiring 250 hours of education and a Therapist tier requiring 500 hours of education or qualifying through one of a few other ways. . No requirement to pass the NCE or any other national exam. . Grandfathering for current practitioners - generous, but also sufficient. . Reasonable state licensing fees. Each of these features are included in the currently negotiated proposed legislation. Our instructions to Foley and Lardner are to work with other parties in support of this bill proposal, but to make clear that continued ABMP support is contingent upon these key features remaining in the bill. We fully understand that most legislation gets tweaked as it moves through the process, but we want a lobbyist on the scene to respond if 11th hour, unsatisfactory proposals are advanced by others. It is far from certain whether a massage licensing bill will go through the complete process in 2004 and become law. With 2004 new elections, legislator term limits and anticipated leadership shifts, it's also difficult to predict whether prospects will be any brighter in 2005. Stay tuned to www.abmp.com for periodic updates. 10/29/03: California Assembly Bill 1388, a bill that would enact massage therapy regulation in the state, was amended and re-introduced September 10th. In anticipation of the changing legislation, a group of massage profession representatives--including ABMP President Bob Benson and ABMP Executive Vice President Les Sweeney--met in Oakland August 12, 2003, to propose amendments to the then existing draft. Many of their recommendations were incorporated. As of press time, the bill was subject to Sunrise review (which determines whether to even consider regulating the massage field) in the state Business & Professions Committee. It was anticipated that the hearing would be held in January. ABMP has communicated to its California members regarding the proposal several times this fall, subject to adoption of amendments concerning education requirements, grandfathering and a few other cleanup items, ABMP supports AB 1388 in its current form. If during the legislative process bill sponsors make unacceptable compromises on key issues, then ABMP would no longer support the bill. We will continue to keep members posted as events warrant. 09/16/03: CA AB 1388 Amended 8/29/03: California coalition makes AB 1388 recommendations. 4/24/03: Assembly Bill 1388, which would regulate massage therapists, was introduced in February by Assembly member Christine Kehoe of San Diego. An update was mailed to ABMP's 7000+ California members, and "town meetings" were conducted in March and April. ABMP President Bob Benson and Executive Vice President Les Sweeney met with Chief of Staff Michael Miiller to represent ABMP members' views on the proposal, and the legislator and her staff have been receptive to ABMP's input. The legislative process for AB 1388 is expected to carry into the 2004 session. 4/14/03: ABMP conducts California Legislative Town Meetings - click here for more information. 01/28/03: California Health Freedom: ABMP would like to extend a sincere thank you to David Palmer and the California Health Freedom Coalition (CHFC) for developing an easy-to-follow, informational package relating to the passage of Senate Bill 577. We encourage you to visit the web site listed below for more information and sample disclosure forms to ensure you are in compliance with the new regulations. In order to download the forms, click on "Practitioner Resources." All the document s are in Adobe Acrobat (PDF) format, except the Sample Compliance Form, which is in a "rich text file" (RTF), so that you can modify it for your own use. To read an Adobe Acrobat file, you must have Acrobat Reader installed on your computer. It is free to download; a link is available on ABMP's homepage at www.abmp.com. While CHFC does not charge for the documents, the organization does require that you register on their site. This will help CHFC continue building a constituency of practitioners and consumers who may be interested in working with CHFC in protecting and improving the health freedom legislation. While donations are requested on the website, ABMP leaves that to your discretion. From the California Health Freedom Coalition: Since the passage of SB-577, the CHFC Steering Committee has been working to make sure that all the hard work that went into passing this landmark legislation was not wasted. Your support was critical over the past year and now it is time to reap the benefits of our efforts. It is time for unlicensed health care providers to take advantage of the protections offered by SB-577 as of January 1, 2003. Thus, we have developed a Compliance Package that will answer the most common questions of consumers and providers about the impact of this innovative legislation. In the package you will find: 1. A copy of final version of SB-577 2. A 7-page Legal Analysis of SB-577 3. A Sample Disclosure Form to give to patients/clients. 4. An Information Sheet for your patients/clients. 5. A Provider FAQ sheet 6. A Consumer FAQ sheet You can download all of these documents from our website www.californiahealthfreedom.org. Please educate yourself, your colleagues, and your clients about the important implications of SB-577. Besides implementation and education, we also see our current role as protecting the gains that we have made for complementary and alternative practices in California. We will be monitoring any attempts to reverse or water down this new law. We will send you the occasional email to let you know what is happening and hope that you will continue to provide your support. SB-577 was not the last step on our path to legitimizing alternative practices in California; it was merely the very important first step of creating a favorable climate in which CAM practices can evolve to their fullest potential. This means developing more educational programs, strong professional organizations, and much more research. Please put our Compliance Package to good use and thanks again for your support of CHFC and SB-577. Sincerely, John Melnychuk President, California Health Freedom Coalition 655 Homer Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 352-4533 website: www.californiahealthfreedom.org 11/18/02: California adopts health freedom legislation On Sept. 23, 2002, Governor Davis signed Senate Bill 577 into law. The Governor commented when he signed the bill, SB 577 "will ease access to alternative and complementary health care options for all Californians." He also stated "the bill provides adequate safeguards for California consumers and enables them to make an informed choice regarding their personal health care." The bill provides that a person is not in violation of certain provisions of the Medical Practice Act (that prohibit the practice of medicine to anyone who is not a licensed physician) as long as that person does not engage in certain specified medical acts. It also requires specified disclosures to each client about practitioner training and method of treatment. Client receipt of disclosure materials must be acknowledged in writing. The California Health Freedom Coalition (CHFC), sponsor of the Bill, expects that SB 577 "will change and improve the culture of health care in California by enhancing access to alternative forms of health care. Since the law also requires unlicensed alternative and complementary health care practitioners to provide basic information to consumers about themselves, their training, and their work, it also serves to enhance consumer safety." SB577 will become effective Jan. 1, 2003. California ABMP member survey summary data analysis ABMP sent a survey to its California membership this past summer to compile documented membership input on general questions and issues that arise throughout the legislative process. More than 6,000 practicing members were surveyed and 1,564 responded, for a rate of return of 25%. Current Regulation . A majority (60%) of members hold one current local permit to practice, with 16% reporting two permits. Four percent of the respondents hold three or more permits in order to comply with local regulations. Attitudes toward state regulation . Modest support for state licensing - slightly less than half (48%) would like to see statewide regulation in California (21% opposed, 27% undecided, 4% no answer). . Title protection preferred over practice act (45% to 26%; 25% undecided, 4% no answer). . Stronger feelings about certain aspects of what state licensing should look like if it were to come into being: » Support for a tiered system (57%) » Support for pre-emption of local regulations (69%); overwhelming support for no license without pre-emption (85%) » Solid support for permanent grandfathering (68%) 9/30/02:<br> From: California Health Freedom Coalition Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 7:21 PM SB577 was signed into law by Governor Davis on September 23. With your help, the California legislature has now passed landmark health freedom legislation that guarantees health freedom not only for our state, but changes the health freedom climate nationwide. Today is the day to pay a debt of gratitude to those who have worked hard for your freedom to use alternative health care and your right to practice alternative therapies. The CHFC still has over $65,000 in debts to pay. Please dig deep and send a contribution today to the CHFC to show your appreciation. Press release: _____________________________________________ California has passed landmark health freedom legislation - Senate Bill 577. In fact, the bill passed the legislature without a single "no" vote. Today, Senate Bill 577 was signed into law by Governor Davis. As he said when he signed the bill, SB 577 "will ease access to alternative and complementary health care options for all Californians." He also stated that "the bill provides adequate safeguards for California consumers and enables them to make an informed choice regarding their personal health care." SB 577, authored by Senate Pro Tem John Burton (D-San Francisco), provides that a person is not in violation of certain provisions of the Medical Practice Act (that prohibit the practice of medicine to anyone who is not a licensed physician) as long as that person does not engage in certain specified medical acts. It also requires specified disclosures to each client about practitioner training and method of treatment. Client receipt of disclosure materials must be acknowledged in writing. The California Health Freedom Coalition (CHFC), sponsor of the Bill, expects that SB 577 will change and improve the culture of health care in California by enhancing access to alternative forms of health care. Since the law also requires unlicensed alternative and complementary health care practitioners to provide basic information to consumers about themselves, their training, and their work, it also serves to enhance consumer safety. SB577 will become effective January 1, 2003 ___________________________________________ THANKS AGAIN FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF THE CHFC AND SB577! Sincerely, John Melnychuk President, California Health Freedom Coalition 655 Homer Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 352-4533 website: www.californiahealthfreedom.org 2/20/02: There is a coalition forming in California to investigate options for statewide regulations. If you would like to become an active participant with this coalition, please contact Beverly May at beverlysmay@home.com 11/8/01: An update from the California Health Freedom Coalition November 1, 2001 The momentum surrounding our Health Freedom bill is picking up. The California Health Freedom Coalition made an excellent and well-received presentation of our bill, SB577, during a Senate Hearing on alternative medicine that took place on October 23 in Sacramento. CHFC secretary, David Palmer, first presented the overall rationale and approach behind SB577. Namely, that as long as a person does not perform a potentially dangerous medical procedure or harm anyone, he or she should not be considered to be practicing medicine without a license. In essence, SB577 will narrow the scope of the Medical Practice Act -- which currently covers anything that anyone could possibly do to heal someone -- to only those medical practices that are potentially dangerous. David's presentation was followed by that of board member Amy Lansky, who described her son's recovery from autism due to homeopathic treatment. Amy made a strong and stirring case for how alternative healing therapies are truly needed in California. The October 23 hearing was called by Senator Liz Figueroa, chair of the Senate Business and Professions Committee -- the committee that regulates medical practice in the state. Senator Figueroa has strong interest in complementary and alternative medicine and recognizes that there are currently problems surrounding this issue in California. During the hearing, testimony was given by various groups including: the naturopathic physicians who are seeking a licensing law for their form of practice; groups who are opposed to licensing approaches to alternative medicine; the CHFC; insurance industry representatives; and a few doctors who feel they have been unfairly prosecuted by the medical board because they use alternative methods. The CHFC's presentation fell in the middle of the day. Aptly placed, we felt that our simple position and common-sense approach was well received by virtually everyone. In addition to the over 1000 consumers who have demonstrated their support at our web site, we have now picked up explicit endorsements from the Ayurvedic practitioners, the Coalition for Natural Health, the California State Homeopathic Medical Society, the California Naturopathic Association, and the National Health Freedom Coalition. Our next big step is having our bill heard by the Senate Business and Professions Committee, probably sometime in January or early February. With support form each of our members, we are optimistic that it will successfully be passed out of the committee! ***Action Items*** 1) Once again, please continue to refer everyone you know to our site and tell them to sign up: www.californiahealthfreedom.org. Increasing the number of our supporters is still OUR BIGGEST PRIORITY. We would like to triple our numbers by the end of the year. With your help we can do it! When committee votes come up starting early next year, enlisting letter writing and phone calls by our supporters will be extremely important. These letters and phone calls will truly make the difference. 2) In mid December, we will be asking you to send a brief letter to your state representative asking him or her to support Senator Burton's Bill, SB577. 3) We are feeling the financial pinch -- and that means fundraising! Any contribution you can make would be extremely appreciated at this time. Please send checks made out to "California Health Freedom Coalition" to the following address: California Health Freedom Coalition 655 Homer Ave. Suite C Palo Alto, California 94301 4) We need more formal endorsements from organizations, health support networks, celebrities, or prominent health professionals/officials. Please contact our office and/or send a letter of endorsement. Stay informed at www.californiahealthfreedom.org John Melnychuk, R.S.Hom (N.A) C.C.H. President, California Health Freedom Coalition 655 Homer Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phone: (650) 325-2528 website: www.californiahealthfreedom.org 7/3/01:> For more information on legislative activity in California, visit the California Citizens for Health Freedom at www.citizenshealth.org/ 4/24/01: California Health Freedom of Access. Visit www.leginfo.ca.gov/ for a complete copy of Senate Bill 577. "The Legislature intends, by enactment of this act, to facilitate access by Californian residents to complementary and alternative health care practitioners who are not providing services that require medical training and credentials. The Legislature further finds that these nonmedical complementary and alternative services do not pose a risk to the health and safety of California residents, and that restricting access to those services due to technical violations of the Medical Practice Act is not warranted." |