Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Interstate Licensing Massage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears Interstate Massage Compact; sponsor withdraws bill after rulemaking, cost and enforcement concerns
Summary
Lawmakers heard House Bill 1217 to join an Interstate Massage Compact that would allow multistate licensing for massage therapists; the sponsor later pulled the bill after committee members raised questions about rulemaking authority, fees and enforcement related to human trafficking and discipline.
Get email alerts on the Interstate Licensing Massage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The House Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee heard testimony on House Bill 1217, a bill to join an Interstate Massage Compact that would allow licensed massage therapists to obtain a multistate license to practice in other member states. Representative Jason Azarenko introduced the bill and said the compact would reduce licensing barriers and expand mobility for practitioners, including military spouses.
Patty Glenn, director of education and professional mobility with the Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards, told the committee the compact creates a national registry and requires passage of the Massage & Bodywork Licensing Examination (MBLEx) for multistate license holders. "This, in fact, does not weaken regulation. In fact, it strengthens it. Therapists must have passed the massage and body work licensing exam," Glenn said.
Support letters from the Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards and other industry groups were provided to the committee. The Arkansas Department of Health and the state Attorney General's office told the sponsor they held neutral positions during conversations, Representative Azarenko said.
Committee members pressed several substantive points: Representative Ben Lee asked whether the compact raises the entry-hour requirement for therapists (Arkansas currently requires 500 hours) and was told the compact's multistate standard is expected to be 625 hours for multistate license applicants, which could be met via core education plus continuing education once the compact's commission sets rules. The sponsor and Glenn said the state's existing licensure requirements meet the bill's state-side obligations.
Members raised concerns about fees and fiscal exposure: the compact's fiscal note included an estimated $15,000 initial cost and $6,000 annual cost to the state, though the Arkansas Department of Health advised those estimates were conservative and might be lower. Witnesses said compact commissions typically set a fee to cover operating costs; one industry estimate suggested the compact fee might be about 1.5 times a state's existing license fee.
Public testimony included opposition from Julie Eckert, a retired law-enforcement investigator who now works in massage therapy and focuses on human-trafficking issues. Eckert warned that states have widely varying massage-practice scopes and discipline standards and said the compact as written could let practitioners from jurisdictions with different rules practice in Arkansas without taking Arkansas-specific law or scope-of-practice exams. "I feel like this opens up the door," she said, citing arrests related to trafficking in other compact states and arguing Arkansas should strengthen its laws rather than join the compact.
Supporters, including Ashley Smith, a Little Rock massage therapist and small-business owner, told the committee the compact would streamline license portability and help staffing by broadening the pool of qualified practitioners. "I fully support this bill because it will streamline license portability for massage therapists, allowing qualified professionals to work in participating states without navigating the costly and time consuming licensing process," Smith said.
After extended discussion about rulemaking authority held by the proposed compact commission and whether the state legislature would retain review over any commission rule changes, the sponsor agreed to remove the bill from consideration. A motion to recommend the bill was withdrawn and the sponsor "pulled back" the bill for further work rather than proceeding to a committee vote.
No committee recommendation was recorded; the bill will not advance from the committee as presented.
