[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6216810,"mediaKeyId","3650536-11bf3428cb14e3e80fb910310b87120d","parentId",3650536,"title","Hundreds of healers, patients and doctors oppose S.261 licensure plan, urge safe‑harbor and targeted trafficking responses","audioSeconds",6368,"startMs",5747000,"endMs",12115000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3650536-11bf3428cb14e3e80fb910310b87120d&start=5747&end=12115","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3650536-11bf3428cb14e3e80fb910310b87120d/thumbnail_5747000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6216810/Massachusetts/Hundreds-of-healers-patients-and-doctors-oppose-S261-licensure-plan-urge-safeharbor-and-targeted-trafficking-responses","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6216810-bbb1abae6058ee64d2afb2d32000a1d4/orig.mp4?Expires=1776611715&Signature=jgxgnrWizLEU0HnH7XqFUujjSzN4ZvUyQK6DPn-P3b70dxl7rcz01CRBhxNukSOPuneRQzyeJqK24NLyjqHGxZSBCdQLNYynHn-EVpj3haDhkr3G5UZbbda5Kpri7AuEQTHWtkz4P84jO7DF9cUUOVRvSFjp~H86SOjAti~jEtQr3FAHn2BmEXSsUIQ~0lKAMtooufUeVBL20AJ6qD~dmYf7Vzl2u3L82nqpAi~UZjCFHwO-9ujPeGvjMeKsNQ5CV6IwULwZ-PO7kqvZcYpY9g3Yz-TPQnPqvQ7l-dWbzJOS2MuWawkzU1l93YqWUNBbWxmG81-yvXgXI47172sBEw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Joint Committee On Consumer Protection And Professional Licensure","date","2025-06-02T00:00:00Z","article","A broad coalition of alternative‑health practitioners, patients, physicians and legal advocates urged the Joint Committee to reject Senate Bill 261 — legislation that would create a new licensing framework covering dozens of energy‑, spiritual‑ and body‑based modalities.

Hundreds of individual witnesses and many advocacy groups testified in opposition at a hearing that stretched for hours. Practitioners said the proposal is too broad, would impose costly school and program approvals, require bonds and fees that would force small sole‑proprietors from the market, and would improperly place non‑touch, spiritual and energy modalities under a massage‑therapy styled board.

“Licensing this practice would be like using these principles, would be like regulating somebody’s prayer or religious practice,” testified Laura Bonieski Joseph, a multi‑generational healer. Multiple witnesses described volunteer programs — for example, Reiki volunteer services at major hospitals and hospice centers — that would be threatened if practitioners had to secure costly state‑approved training, bonds and approvals.

Opponents also challenged the bill’s premise that occupational licensure is an effective way to prevent human trafficking. Several speakers cited the Massachusetts Interagency Human Trafficking Task Force (2013) and noted its recommendations focus on law enforcement, data collection and targeted interventions rather than broad occupational licensing. Attorney Robert O’Leary and other legal witnesses warned of constitutional and antitrust risks if a small board of licensed trades restricts competing educational programs.

Physicians and other medical professionals also spoke, but from different angles. Dr. Sarah Schulman, a board‑certified physician, told the committee her own recovery used complementary modalities and opposed a bill that would narrow patients’ access. Others asked for cleaner statutory language to carve out legitimate practices and protect consumers.

Many witnesses urged the legislature to consider an alternative: a “safe‑harbor” statute (bills S.1481 / H.2504 were cited) that would preserve consumer access to complementary care while ensuring basic transparency and criminal‑background checks where appropriate. Supporters argued that safe‑harbor laws already in effect in other states strike a better balance between consumer protection and preserving non‑medical healing traditions.

Committee members heard detailed, often personal testimony — from cancer‑care volunteers, longtime Feldenkrais and somatic‑movement educators, Reiki masters, breath‑work teachers, and dozens of clients who credited these therapies with restoring health when conventional medicine had not. The committee did not take a vote. Members asked for written submissions and specific proposals that would implement the 2013 trafficking task‑force recommendations without broadly licensing hundreds of modalities.

Next steps: The committee invited additional written materials and legal analyses and indicated it would review narrower statutory options, including safe‑harbor language and targeted amendments to existing criminal and consumer‑protection statutes.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Joint Committee On Consumer Protection And Professional Licensure\t6/2/2025","oneSentenceSummary","A broad coalition of alternative‑health practitioners, patients, physicians and legal advocates urged the Joint Committee to reject Senate Bill 261 — legislation that would create a new licensing framework covering dozens of energy‑, spiritual‑ and body‑based modalities.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature MA, Massachusetts","taxId",77682,"location","Massachusetts","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6216820,"Mass. restaurant groups and small-business advocates press legislature to allow credit‑card surcharges and curb fees",2595,725000,3320000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3650536-11bf3428cb14e3e80fb910310b87120d&start=725&end=3320","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3650536-11bf3428cb14e3e80fb910310b87120d/thumbnail_725000.jpg","/articles/6216820/Massachusetts/Mass-restaurant-groups-and-small-business-advocates-press-legislature-to-allow-creditcard-surcharges-and-curb-fees","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6216820-65d4441f9bc8b9a75b91ccae3343ae34/orig.mp4?Expires=1776611715&Signature=PnItMIFij7JuOP6rxCzr~lsjsuHWqxJgdPs36qVqHOlqKhxg~wJQQ7lnHmy2Av2o8OXhAczinDdoX8-jNr9ZydieUrpZ3HrwT9x83Q5gmc8XdUabPXbWxySrh6IT6y5pZc7AuBO1p7t5P7ETPCYxYDQULQyaR~Gq02sS7m2vDV--unpUPJGWXZfKds9B5ft3zyzK95~aXOVxIZ5Kfr4ru9W8OAa25CL2cCpmCS3AUlq-Z8m5YjtosBvxFzUwq27ZZdJsISpYTksGTlLgTHfL8UmXZbHNpY8ozPQmhAMehSAIQLCDFZI-xGApvG7LUACsjVBGWtK3l8bdpuOuTnO-VA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Lawmakers heard competing pitches on credit‑card fees and interchange rules during a Joint Committee hearing that drew restaurant owners, labor and business groups, payment networks and consumer advocates.

Representatives of the Massachusetts Restaurant Association, small restaurant owners and the National Federation of Independent Business urged the committee to pass bills that would allow businesses to add a disclosed convenience fee or surcharge for credit‑card payments and to ban charging fees on taxes and tips collected by merchants. They said the current cost of card processing is squeezing thin restaurant margins and that Massachusetts is one of two states currently prohibiting surcharges.

The issue matters because restaurants said card fees are applied to full transaction totals — including sales tax and gratuities — and because card use is common: testimony said over 80% of meal tax payments are expected to be made by card this year. “Credit card fees used to be about 50% of our sales. Post pandemic they were over 90%,” Kathy Turner of Turner Seafoods told the committee. Turner testified her three restaurants paid roughly $400,000 in card fees last year, with about $100,000 attributable to collecting taxes and tips.

Jessica Moore, director of government affairs for the Massachusetts Restaurant Association, said the industry’s annual processing costs range from about $20,000 to $50,000 for the average small operator and estimated restaurants collected and remitted more than $1.5 billion in meal tax last year, with most paid by card. She and other witnesses asked the committee to consider bills that (1) permit a clear, optional surcharge to cover card processing, and (2) prohibit issuers from charging interchange on tax and tip amounts.

Small‑business advocates echoed those calls. Christopher Carlozzi, Massachusetts director for the National Federation of Independent Business, said rising card‑processing costs have moved higher on his members’ list of business concerns and argued Massachusetts firms are at a competitive disadvantage because 48 other states allow surcharges.

Speakers representing banks, card networks and some processors warned the committee that steps to regulate interchange or to forbid charging fees on taxes and gratuities could disrupt the national payment system. Steve Rauschenberger of the Electronic Payments Coalition and Brian Yates of the Electronic Transactions Association said interchange (the portion of a merchant fee that goes to the card issuer) and network routing are global, technical systems that cannot easily separate a transaction into multiple taxed components in real time.

“We have a global payment system that serves your constituents extraordinarily well,” Rauschenberger said. He and other industry witnesses argued that network and issuer agreements, merchant discount rates and fraud‑mitigation costs are part of a two‑sided market that sets rates based on risk and card type; they pointed to legal and operational challenges in Illinois after that state passed a related law.

Credit unions and community financial institutions also testified. Jessica Avery of the Cooperative Credit Union Association opposed a proposal to require merchants to negotiate separate terms with each card issuer, arguing it would fragment acceptance, raise costs and risk federal preemption under the National Bank Act.

Committee members asked clarifying questions about margins, the share of fees attributable to taxes and tips, the administrative burden on merchants and the legal exposure from state action. Several witnesses proposed narrower fixes — for example, allowing surcharges while separately pursuing the option to remove interchange on tax and tip amounts — so merchants could choose how to respond.

The hearing produced no committee votes. Sponsors and stakeholders left the committee with a range of options to consider, from a limited statutory allowance for merchant surcharges with disclosure requirements to broader industry‑level changes that would require federal action or significant changes to payment network operations.

Local impact and next steps: Committee members pressed witnesses for empirical data and said they want to weigh the financial relief small businesses seek against legal and technical risks flagged by banks and networks. The hearing record includes written petitions and cost data submitted by the restaurant association and several individual operators; staff said they will circulate that material and may call additional witnesses before recommendation votes.","Lawmakers heard competing pitches on credit‑card fees and interchange rules during a Joint Committee hearing that drew restaurant owners, labor and business groups, payment networks and consumer advocates.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6216805,"Psychologists, board and lawmakers back ‘senior psychologist’ licensure to ease relicensing hurdles for experienced clinicians",2937,2323000,5260000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3650536-11bf3428cb14e3e80fb910310b87120d&start=2323&end=5260","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3650536-11bf3428cb14e3e80fb910310b87120d/thumbnail_2323000.jpg","/articles/6216805/Massachusetts/Psychologists-board-and-lawmakers-back-senior-psychologist-licensure-to-ease-relicensing-hurdles-for-experienced-clinicians","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6216805-59f4810992c0e4e04449537c3ff5d4cc/orig.mp4?Expires=1776611715&Signature=cqd5-gWTBWdn1qK9uawta3jJzUf9wDBlS04yMHgM7OGndoF5xDRbYh3kS7HcSXnW4zC8l4hhDDuWrz~1WIxSA8L-kVm8jgA76XPihh0zQLrnFp8uYa47RMXUEco6vBIBJcP7heMvzUxyz4MqPVLZbxV0uOXTgiTn4PIz1Hv2vlTu3fqhrHk80FioZqSHq2mLUydbCHyj7Bt1wkPTkZri97-zr-JpJmQL9X8tJolea01kG0fPnVInjkU1QRsZ8hjJ1JQBmtw19lGPgxIu7zvmQ6Lle-k5JmzIAeJFeHyC8TE7WQWgCOkdlC8ZhWlOlcZBvZqdeTi8EivGg~uNCRne8Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At a Joint Committee hearing, the Massachusetts Psychological Association and individual psychologists urged lawmakers to create a ‘senior psychologist’ license to make it easier for experienced clinicians licensed in other states to obtain Massachusetts authorization.

Senator Jo Comerford’s office and the association characterized the problem as one of antiquated paperwork requirements that disproportionately affect mid‑career and senior psychologists who trained decades ago. Witnesses said the board currently requires original internship and supervision documentation that in many cases is impossible to obtain because supervisors are retired or deceased and training programs have closed or reorganized.

Senator Lovely (remote) and Beth Durske of the Massachusetts Psychological Association testified that an alternative licensure pathway for psychologists who hold doctoral degrees and long‑standing licenses in other states would expand the Commonwealth’s behavioral‑health workforce without lowering standards. Rika Alper, a psychologist licensed in New York since 1983, described her multi‑year effort to relicensure in Massachusetts and said she faced repeated, changing documentation demands, including requests for courses or paperwork not reasonable for professionals trained decades ago.

Proponents said the proposed senior license would allow the board to evaluate the totality of an applicant’s career, licensing history and clean disciplinary record rather than rigidly requiring archival internship forms. Supporters framed the bills (H462 / S255) as workforce measures to bring experienced clinicians into Massachusetts practice, especially in underserved areas.

Committee members asked about how the board would verify experience and whether reciprocal licensing would preserve public protection. Witnesses emphasized continued background checks, verification of active licensure in other states and disciplinary‑history review as safeguards.

No committee action was taken on the bills during the hearing. The committee said it will consider drafting language to allow the board discretion to recognize long‑practice applicants under an expedited pathway while maintaining public‑protection safeguards.","The Massachusetts Psychological Association and out‑of‑state psychologists told the Joint Committee that current paperwork and internship documentation requirements block experienced psychologists licensed elsewhere from practicing locally; sponsors proposed a ‘senior psychologist’ category to recognize long‑standing licensure and practice",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6216815,"Artists and fan groups clash with resellers and platforms over forced ticket‑transfer rules",921,4064000,4985000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3650536-11bf3428cb14e3e80fb910310b87120d&start=4064&end=4985","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3650536-11bf3428cb14e3e80fb910310b87120d/thumbnail_4064000.jpg","/articles/6216815/Massachusetts/Artists-and-fan-groups-clash-with-resellers-and-platforms-over-forced-tickettransfer-rules","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6216815-6f9e5d229183b2cd58799937ab8d99e9/orig.mp4?Expires=1776611715&Signature=X2HCugh9pkpLxqLTsdLHYiEoGtECKiu88p8~bR4AUPD3FOPCbmdXwiHxWaBqalPlEgBzKwOFYvCvG8kxvWCFK9FdYqilSF7Nt9EW3hAYIYqj02Vw4~IAgWarv~827aidL6ZQE-lY83q7dzNRZEhntaiIt283fyu11gF65~UNhgcgMy0s5IeK9CTRyU5juP~R9jraIcA0sMWbC9i2Fugv00bz-mkylsOjralQsbnYaUZdvlLiSxbgoFyYgFLHy0NMN439ivb2cXKqU0n3d6ZHgLtGRb~q0-uDVUgeayabmwXMyCmNiegbOlz3O5XUliF0L0wN9HqMsB3BZHnzbNN2jQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A contested pair of bills to require primary ticket sellers to permit ticket transfers brought dueling testimony from musicians, fan groups and resale‑market advocates at a Joint Committee hearing.

Supporters of the bills, including the National Consumers League and the Sports Fans Coalition, told the committee that requiring transferable tickets promotes competition and lowers prices for sports and concert fans. They cited analyses showing below‑face resale options are frequently available and that transferability has produced significant savings for some fans.

“Fans should have the right to transfer their previously purchased tickets freely and without restrictions,” Brian Hess of the Sports Fans Coalition said. Hess cited a Sports Fans Coalition analysis of resale data showing fans saved more than $25 million in Massachusetts sporting events since 2017.

Opponents — including representatives of artist and musician advocacy groups — said mandating transferability could undermine tools artists use to limit scalping and protect fans, such as artist‑run fan‑to‑fan marketplaces and primary‑market restrictions that control who may resell a ticket or how. Preston Osman of United Musicians and Allied Workers told the committee that forcing transferability “works against the interests of musicians by taking away artist’s ability to protect fans from predatory resellers and scalpers.”

Both sides referenced Live Nation Ticketmaster’s dominant role in primary and secondary markets. John Breault of the Theater Owners of New England and others urged exemptions for independent venues and drive‑ins where local business models and small‑scale primary sales differ from large concert promoters.

The bills are pitched as pro‑consumer measures by supporters who argue the secondary market gives fans price options and access when plans change, while opponents say mandatory transferability can foreclose artist‑designed resale systems that cap price and preserve access for core fans. The committee did not vote on the measures during the hearing and said it would review submitted data and legal studies, including federal legislation now under discussion and the recently passed Federal Ticket Act mentioned by witnesses.

Next steps: The committee will consider written submissions and data from both sides and decide whether to hold further hearings. Stakeholders on both sides said they are willing to provide additional, detailed market analyses to inform the committee’s evaluation.","Two opposing coalitions told the Joint Committee that proposed bills on ticket transferability would either protect fans from predatory resellers or would remove tools artists use to block scalpers; industry data and artist groups clashed over who benefits from mandating transferability","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Hundreds of healers, patients and doctors oppose S.261 licensure plan, urge safe‑harbor and targeted trafficking responses

Mass. restaurant groups and small-business advocates press legislature to allow credit‑card surcharges and curb fees

Psychologists, board and lawmakers back ‘senior psychologist’ licensure to ease relicensing hurdles for experienced clinicians

Artists and fan groups clash with resellers and platforms over forced ticket‑transfer rules