Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Licensing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to modernize massage therapy licensing, expand temporary licensure and strengthen establishment oversight heard
Summary
SB386 would streamline licensure for experienced practitioners from other states, permit 90‑day temporary practice, update reflexology scope, and let the Board of Massage Therapy discipline establishments; the board sought case‑by‑case treatment for certain applicants.
Senate Bill 386, presented by Senator Melanie Scheibel’s office, would modernize Nevada’s regulatory framework for massage therapy, expand expedited licensing pathways for practitioners licensed in other states, update certain scope definitions and strengthen oversight of establishments.
Soraya Bonner introduced the bill on behalf of Senator Scheibel. Elizabeth Barnard, executive director of the Nevada State Board of Massage Therapy, described the measure as a cleanup bill that provides “a little bit more teeth” to licensing and enforcement. Barnard said SB386 would:
• Expand licensure pathways for practitioners licensed in other states and make temporary licensing more practical, allowing licensed out‑of‑state practitioners to practice in Nevada for up to 90 days after notice;
• Add the application of pressure to the face to the definition of reflexology;
• Remove the statutory requirement that the board alternate public meeting locations (a practice made largely redundant by virtual meeting technology) and explicitly authorize electronic participation;
• Authorize the board to adopt regulations to discipline establishment certificate holders and allow the executive director to sign subpoenas to streamline investigations;
• Clarify advertising rules so either an individual license number or the establishment certificate can appear in public advertising.
Barnard told the committee the changes were intended to modernize the board’s operations, make temporary licensure workable, and improve consumer trust by aligning advertising and oversight.
Assemblymember O’Neil asked about a constituent with a long history of out‑of‑state practice whose school records were not available; Barnard said such cases are unique and may be handled case‑by‑case. She did not commit to a blanket administrative remedy without additional information, saying the board must guard against opening avenues to bad actors while helping genuinely qualified practitioners regain licensure.
No opposition testimony was recorded. The committee closed the hearing on SB386 after board testimony and member questions; no committee vote occurred during the session.
