California
Laws &
Regulation
Update
Back to California
Laws & Regulations
California
Bill Held March
2004
Citing the need for more
time and a state budgetary crisis as its reasons, the California
chapter of the American Massage Therapy Association (AMTA-CA) decided
in December to withdraw its massage-therapy licensure bill from
the legislative docket.
AB 1388,
the controversial bill that proposed the creation of a tiered licensure
system for massage therapists, was scheduled to be heard in January.
“We
just haven’t had time to do everything we wanted, and the state
is in such [financial] chaos right now,” said Beverly May,
AMTA-CA government-relations chair. “We want to know that when
we go into a hearing that we have the committee votes and we have
negotiated with all the various stakeholders.”
While
proponents agreed upon the need for a state law to override the
numerous local ordinances that currently regulate therapists, critics
opposed some provisions of the bill, including education-hour requirements
and mandatory passage of the National Certification Exam for Therapeutic
Massage and Bodywork, and urged a letter-writing campaign to state
legislators in protest.
The
bill’s withdrawal does not mean its demise, according to May.
Its sponsor, Assemblywoman Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego), can reintroduce
a renamed bill later in the year or in the 2005 legislative session.
Meanwhile, May said, informational meetings about the proposed licensure
law will be held and the AMTA-CA is working toward consensus with
interested parties, such as the state’s physical therapists
and the California League of Cities. Updates about the licensure
effort can be found at www.amta-ca.org.
- Kelle
Walsh
|
California
bill on hold July
2003
A controversial bill to regulate California's
massage therapists has been held over to the next legislative session,
which begins Javuary 2004. AB 1388, sponsored by Assembly member Christine
Kehoe (D-San Diego), was removed from the docket after the massage
community made it clear that there was more work to do, according
to legislative aide Michael Miiller.
"Holding
the bill allows us to continue to meet with all the stakeholders,
all the interested parties, flush out some issues and try to build
some consensus on the bill," he said.
Beverly
May, law and legislative chair of the California chapter of the
American Massage Therapy Association, said the bill is still being
reviewed by the Sunrise review comittee, which makes determinations
on the necessity of creating regulated professions. In the meantime,
said May, "we will be working on amendments to the bill...
so that by January we have a bill we all can live live with with."
Prior to
being held, the bill had been amened from a title act to a practice
act. "This was the result of continuing stakeholder meetings
and where people in the industry and practitioners see that this
should go," Miiller said, adding that input received indicated
that a practice act would "have more teeth than a title act."
In the
meantime, California's massage practitioners must comply with the
health-freedom law (SB577) that went into effect in January.
Under that
law, massage practitioners, as well as other unlicensed providers
of complementary health care, must disclose to clients: their training
and qualifications; that he or she is not a licensed physician;
that the treatment is complementary to types of health care licensed
by the state; that the service is not licensed by the state; the
nature of the services to be provided; and the theory upon which
the service are based. In addition, the practitioner must obtain
a written acknowledgement from the client stating that he or she
has been provided with the above-described information.
-Kelle
Walsh
|