Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Professional Licensing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee reviews SB 386 to modernize massage‑therapy licensing and board authority
Summary
Senators reviewed SB 386, a bill from the Massage Therapy Licensing Board to add credential‑review pathways, allow discipline of business establishments, and modernize temporary licensure and subpoena authority.
Senate Bill 386, presented by Senator Melanie Scheibel, would update Nevada’s massage‑therapy licensing statutes to add credential review pathways, authorize discipline of establishments, modernize the temporary‑license process, and clarify scope for related practices such as reflexology.
The board’s executive director, Elizabeth Barnard, said the bill “provides a couple different pathways to licensure” so applicants who trained or practiced elsewhere can be licensed without unnecessary barriers while maintaining competency standards. Colleen Platt, a board representative, described a draft amendment to ensure the credential‑review language covers massage therapists, reflexologists and structural integration practitioners and to align statutory language with the board’s regulations.
Board and committee priorities: the proposal would allow the board to issue discipline against establishment holders (businesses), authorize the executive director to sign subpoenas to streamline investigations, permit establishment numbers to be used in advertising (rather than individual license numbers where impractical), and add face‑to‑face scope language for reflexology. The board also proposed a revised temporary license pathway intended to be more workable than the current provision, which the board said has rarely been used.
Committee questions and clarifications: Senators asked about practitioners operating from private homes and whether local jurisdiction rules apply; board staff said any practitioner must hold a Nevada license and that local zoning or business rules can govern home‑based establishments. Senator Daley asked about the proposed three‑year experience pathway for credential review and whether the statute should require the experience be recent; board representatives said all applicants would still face an exam requirement (the national exam such as the MBLEx) and the board would adopt regulations to clarify details.
Process: the bill came at the board’s request and proponents said they would work with the committee on the posted amendment to ensure the credential review text matches the different practitioner scopes. No public opposition was presented at the hearing and no committee vote was taken.
