Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
02/15/2017 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB110 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 110 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 110-MASSAGE THERAPY LICENSING; EXEMPTIONS
3:18:09 PM
CHAIR KITO announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 110, "An Act relating to the practice of massage
therapy; relating to the Board of Massage Therapists; and
providing for an effective date."
3:19:28 PM
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, Staff, Representative Sam Kito, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 110 on behalf of Representative Kito,
prime sponsor. She stated that the bill language was brought
forward by the Board of Massage Therapists, which felt that
there were some loopholes that needed to be tightened up. The
board was established in 2014 and has since discussed the issue
in many board meetings.
MS. KOENEMAN expressed that HB 110 would do many things. It
would allow the board to adopt regulations governing massage
therapy establishments. The bill would increase the number of
hours required for in-class supervised instruction and clinical
work from an approved massage school from 500 to 625 hours,
following closer to national standards. She noted that all
massage therapy schools in Alaska currently provide 750 hours or
more. The bill would reduce the required number of hours of
safety education on blood-borne pathogens from four hours to two
hours; the courses are two hours long, so most licensees have
been taking the same course twice to meet the requirement. She
explained that HB 110 would allow the board to issue exemptions
from licensing requirements for people who submit an
application, pay a registration fee, and submit proof that they
meet the requirements for the exemptions. The exemptions would
be valid for up to ten years or until the licensee's scope of
practice has changed.
MS. KOENEMAN referred to AS 08.61.080, which lists exceptions.
She stated that HB 110 would remove paragraphs 7, 10, 11, and 13
from AS 08.61.080 and insert the paragraphs into new statutory
language, which would require registration.
3:23:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether the requirements in
paragraphs 7, 10, 11, and 13 in current statute would be
exempted in the bill.
3:23:33 PM
MS. KOENEMAN explained that current statue sets out exceptions
which are not governed under massage therapy statutes. Section
3 of HB 110 outlines that those exceptions would be required to
register with the department but would not be governed or
regulated by the board. She noted that the groups listed in the
exemptions, such as Rolfers or structural integrators, would not
need meet licensing requirements. The board would not have
oversight of the professions, but the groups would register with
a nominal fee to have their name and business included in a
database. She explained that registering the groups would help
the investigative team with the Department of Commerce,
Community & Economic Development (DCCED) and Federal Bureau of
Investigations (FBI) to determine whether individuals are
licensed or unlicensed. She stated that concerns of sex
trafficking and human trafficking have led to HB 110.
3:25:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked how many Rolfers are involved.
3:25:54 PM
CHAIR KITO stated that there isn't a state database collecting
data for Rolfers - they are exempt from statutory oversight.
Therefore, the number of Rolfers eligible to register is
undetermined.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked, "Is a driver on this because there's
illegal sex trafficking going on, as opposed to ... people out
there getting ... Rolfed legitimately that haven't paid a ...
registration fee?"
CHAIR KITO informed that the board chair can better explain what
the changes are. He stated that Rolfing is one of several
exceptions currently in statute that would be reclassified under
HB 110.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked whether Rolfing would be incorporated
and would require a permit.
CHAIR KITO explained that the exceptions currently in statute
include 13 individual types of practices, several of which
include applying pressure by hand, and those exceptions are
being removed and reclassified as exemptions. The exemptions
would require a practitioner to provide registration stating
what type of manipulation he/she practices and the location of
the business. He stated that a registration fee would help take
care of the paperwork for filing the applications. The
registered individuals would still not be licensed under Alaska
statute, but their businesses would exist in a database,
allowing investigators to know who has been registered as a
legitimate practitioner.
3:28:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked if the Board of Massage Therapists
asked the sponsor for legislation to expand the definition of
massage to include Rolfing and other practices.
CHAIR KITO answered yes.
3:29:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked Ms. Koeneman who is asking for
the legislation.
3:29:16 PM
MS. KOENEMAN responded the Board of Massage Therapists. She
remarked, "They approached us and had requested ... changes to
their statutes."
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether the board said it wanted
changes that would impact massage therapists and wanted Rolfers
to be registered.
MS. KOENEMAN stated the changes were discussed in the board's
public meetings. The board determined that the language of HB
110 gives investigators the tools necessary to do more timely
investigations.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked what the board's motivation is
for changing the Rolfers' statutory classification. He
remarked, "Are they afraid that the sex traffickers are really
not them, but the Rolfers, and so they're to divert attention to
the Rolfers?"
3:30:47 PM
CHAIR KITO stated the question might be more appropriate for the
chair of the Board of Massage Therapists.
3:30:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP mentioned that when people try to sell
something they freely throw out disparaging accusations. He
stated that the board is recommending something and concerns
about sex trafficking, prostitution, and human trafficking have
been mentioned. He cautioned that evidence should be provided
before disparaging a profession.
MS. KOENEMAN stated that she does not intend to disparage any
profession. She remarked, "There are concerns of sex
trafficking, and whether they are from these professions or
somebody else that lays hands on others, it's a way of having an
idea of who is authorized and who is registered with the state
to practice something in this scope." She reiterated that she
does not want to disparage the profession in any way.
3:32:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL stated his understanding that the proposed
legislation allows Rolfers and other modalities to register in a
database but not necessarily be a licensed member of a board.
He asked whether a Rolfer with a statutory exemption is a
licensed practitioner but does not have to meet the additional
requirements.
MS. KOENEMAN answered, "With the way the current statute is,
it's almost like they don't exist in the world of massage
therapy." She stated that there is no way to know who is
practicing and there is no oversight. In statute, the
professions don't fall under massage therapy, therefore there is
no oversight from any state department at any level.
3:34:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL commented that with the current exception,
Rolfers could merely "hang a sign on the door" and practice
without any professional oversight, although there is oversight
for massage therapy. He stated that a component of HB 110 is to
combat sex trafficking; and under the bill, anyone who states
that they practice massage must prove they are licensed.
MS. KOENEMAN stated that if anyone hangs a sign saying he/she is
a massage therapist and practices, he/she would need to be
registered and licensed. There are provisions in statute for
unlicensed activity which lead to investigations and penalties.
Currently, Rolfers can practice Rolfing with a business license
and no other registration. The board does not currently have
the ability to adopt regulations governing massage
establishments, which is where there are concerns of sex
trafficking and human trafficking.
3:36:59 PM
CHAIR KITO stated that current statute does not allow the
ability to track Rolfing. Anyone under the existing exceptions
can practice without the board's knowledge or oversight. He
explained that there is an interest in providing the ability to
register activities and addresses of some modalities, but they
would not be overseen, tracked, or licensed.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL noted that HB 110 would provide exemptions
to non-massage modalities but they would have to register. He
asked if such businesses could practice without the exemption.
He remarked, "They're not a licensed practitioner of massage
therapy; they practice another modality; they don't wish to
apply for an exemption; they're non-registered; they just have a
shingle..."
CHAIR KITO deemed that the department can better answer how they
would enforce the statute.
3:38:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked if any fees are currently charged to
the other modalities.
3:38:57 PM
MS. KOENEMAN answered no. The only established fees are for
massage therapy.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked if HB 110 would implement fees to
the other modalities with registration.
MS. KOENEMAN responded that there would be nominal registration
fees, but not licensing fees like those associated with the
massage therapists.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked if the fees are indicated in the
bill.
MS. KOENEMAN drew attention to HB 110, section 4, lines 12 and
13, which would allow the department to set fees for exemption
applications and renewals. She stated that the fee is separate
from the license for massage therapists; it is an additional fee
that the department would be authorized to establish.
3:40:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that HB 110 would broaden the reach
[of government] in a time of a $3 billion deficit. He said the
stacks of communication the committee has received are a good
indication that the non-massage world has operated fine. He
asked, "Do we really need to be pushing out into this?" He
noted that the bill is likely not a revenue opportunity without
knowing how many people the bill would affect. He stated his
concern that this bill would require a fair amount of time.
CHAIR KITO stated that HB 110 has no additional cost. He noted
that the bill has not been fully presented. He urged members to
refrain from making final conclusions on the bill until all
information has been presented.
3:42:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked if there is a national
organization that collects information on structural integration
specialists.
MS. KOENEMAN offered her understanding that there is a national
organization of Rolfers.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked if the impetus for the bill was
to have a registry to separate the "true" structural integration
specialists from the not truly trained person. He asked why
there wasn't a separate bill to register other "laying on hands"
individuals.
MS. KOENEMAN responded that in the past there has been
discussion of Rolfers creating their own board. The
conversations which established [the Board of Massage Therapy]
included discussions of whether or not to include Rolfers. In
many other states, other modalities are included in massage
therapy statutes. She noted that it's not uncommon for a person
to be licensed as both a massage therapist and a Rolfer since
they are similar professions. She stated that the board chair
can better speak to the impetus for HB 110.
3:44:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked if [the non-massage modalities] would
be subject to investigation if they were registered but not
regulated. He commented that businesses are required to have a
business license in order to "hang the shingle." He asked if
registration could be done through the licensing process.
MS. KOENEMAN deferred the first question regarding
investigations to the department. Responding to the question
regarding business licenses, she said that when individuals
apply for a business license, they get to choose their North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code. Sorting
through the many business licenses creates a burden for
investigators.
3:46:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD asked if different modalities
are under one distinction in the Lower 48 and where that is
happening. She noted that Rolfers must go through distinct
training to be certified, and they put a lot of time and energy
into their craft.
MS. KOENEMAN stated that she is working on compiling a list and
will share it with the committee upon completion.
3:48:07 PM
DAVID EDWARDS-SMITH, Chair, Alaska Board of Massage Therapists,
testified in support of HB 110. He stated that in February of
2015, the Alaska Board of Massage Therapists had its first
meeting. The board took seriously the advisement of Dr. Sara
Chambers to discuss the process of reviewing the statutes and
determining the best way to instill refinement in the new laws.
He expressed that the board felt it was necessary to refine
statute by addressing massage establishments, licensing
exemptions, entry-level education requirements, and
inconsistencies with the standards in blood-born pathogen
education. He said that the board's establishment has led to a
better understanding of ways to serve Alaskans.
MR. EDWARDS-SMITH stated that the board is aware of exploitation
of the massage therapy profession for illegal practice of human
and sex trafficking, which is prevalent throughout the United
States. He cautioned that the problem will continue if
institutions of law enforcement are not permitted the critical
tools to addressing the issue. In 2015, state investigations
and the FBI identified 29 illicit establishments in Anchorage
and up to 130 throughout Alaska. He noted that several agencies
have communicated their concern on the issue of human and sex
trafficking at board meetings. The agencies include: the
Alaska Wage and Hour [Administration], DCBPL's Investigations
Unit, the FBI, and the Federation of State Massage Therapy
Boards. The board determined through research and discussion
that it was necessary for the protection of the public to work
to provide law enforcement agencies to the tools to address this
issue.
MR. EDWARDS-SMITH stated that requiring massage establishments
to register would enable state and federal investigation
agencies to hold the owner of an establishment accountable for
criminal activities. Under current statute, investigators are
only able to hold massage therapists - who are often victims -
accountable for criminal activities. The cycle of human and sex
trafficking remains unbroken until the business owner is legally
accountable for his/her establishment's activities.
3:50:54 PM
MR. EDWARDS-SMITH expressed that the board has drafted
regulations to ensure that there is no impact on establishments
owned by licensed massage therapists. The owners have been
vetted with fingerprinting and background checks, which are
necessary protocols in the industry. Owners of massage
establishments will be required to maintain local, state, and
federal standards of health and safety and operate in a manner
that ensures public protection. He remarked:
As far as exemptions, with the necessary statutory
change to licensing establishments, we looked to
address loopholes that have been known to be or have
the potential of exploitation by illegal practices in
the massage industry. After careful consideration of
information presented by the massage therapy boards
from around the United States through the federation
of massage therapy board and public testimony, the
board determined that a strengthening of existing
exemption language was in the interest of public
protection.
MR. EDWARDS-SMITH stated that the board determined that two
exemptions required a strengthening of language to prevent
illegal exploitation of existing statute. The current exemption
language for reflexology and structural integration allows any
acting practitioner to claim an exemption by defining his/her
practice as only involving the hands and feet or as a structural
integrator. Reflexology was not defined in statute and did not
require proof of credentials. He expressed that research
demonstrated that acting practitioners could avoid licensure
with a non-professional public membership to the International
Association of Structural Integrators (IASI). The board
determined that public protection required closing such
loopholes. The board also determined that exemptions involving
an act of touch must be registered with the division to provide
a resource for investigators to take appropriate action in the
event of suspected illegal activity. The board determined that
changes in education requirements are necessary for consistency
with the skill components of entry-level education. The board
reviewed a study of entry analysis which resulted in the change
to 624-hour school programs to prepare graduates for safe and
competent practice. The board recognized that the four hour
requirement for blood-borne pathogen courses was unnecessary.
3:54:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether the board decided to
engage in an effort to review practices of reflexology and
structural integration and include them in the concern of sex
trafficking.
MR. EDWARDS-SMITH stated the board was targeting the exemptions
that utilized touch, listed as paragraphs 7, 10, 11, and 13 of
AS 08.61.080. He stated that no profession was singled out;
there are four exemptions for which registration was being
required.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON noted that this is a new board. He
asked whether the board was concerned that other trades were
negatively coloring reputable massage therapy practitioners. He
stated that he does not understand why the board reached outside
its field to discuss regulating or registering someone else's
trade.
MR. EDWARDS-SMITH stated there is a disagreement about whether
structural integrators are outside the massage therapy industry.
The Federation for State Massage Therapy Boards had a job task
analysis which confirmed that somatic therapists, Rolfers, and
structural integrators were interchangeable. The data also
confirmed that body workers and meta practitioners performed and
viewed the importance of tasks nearly identically to massage
therapists.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON offered his impression that a Rolfer is
a professional in the field of medicine, and a masseuse is a
different kind of professional.
3:57:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES commented that the bill is overreaching.
She referred to a letter which indicated that there is such a
large differential between massage therapists and the other
modalities that massage therapists instituted a lawsuit against
a Rolfer professing to be a massage therapist. She offered her
opinion that using the FBI or law enforcement is an excuse for
overreach. She asked why the board felt the "need to control
everyone in the playground."
3:59:36 PM
MR. EDWARDS-SMITH stated that he disagrees that the bill is
overreaching. He mentioned that there is concern, not
specifically with Rolfing, but with all exemptions. Colorado
had 30 cases of exploitation of it reflexology exemption last
year. He said that the board is not looking to control the
exemptions, but tighten the language. Right now, anyone could
hang a shingle and be exempt from regulation, and 1,000
licensees wouldn't have to renew their license if they changed
their description to structural integrator. He added that
structural integration coursework is common in massage therapy
schools. He stated that the term "structural integrator" is not
a registered trademark like Rolfing: Rolfing is a trademark
bodywork technique that has made its way into exemption language
in massage therapy statutes in an effort to distinguish the
brand. He offered his understanding that "there are 6 states
out of 46 states that have Rolfing exemptions." He expressed
that the Rolfing exemptions in these states were based on
conclusions from experts in the professions, but were based on
lobbying efforts by IASI.
4:02:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES offered her interpretation of Mr. Edwards-
Smith's comments. She analyzed that he wants other professions
to conform to the same regulations that he has to conform to and
have the same educational requirements. She compared it to
nurses complying with doctor's regulations or being forced to
get more schooling. She expressed that the bill does not make
sense to her, but she would keep her mind open.
4:03:21 PM
CHAIR KITO stated that there isn't time for public testimony
today; it will be heard at a future meeting.
4:04:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP referred to the 29 cases in Anchorage and
130 in Alaska mentioned by Mr. Edwards-Smith. He asked if the
cases were infractions on licensed facilities and what type of
facilities they were. He questioned whether the regulations in
place are working if the infractions were at licensed massage
facilities.
4:05:08 PM
ANGELA BIRT, Chief Investigator, Division of Corporations,
Business, and Professional Licensing (DCBPL), Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED), responded to
Representative Knopp's question, stating that the numbers refer
to facilities identified by the Anchorage Police Department or
the FBI as potential human trafficking locations. The
facilities are not all being investigated and are not
necessarily where infractions occurred. Most of the facilities
are advertised as massage operations. She stated that there is
currently no law that would allow inspections of the facilities
in question. The law requires individual practitioners to be
licensed, but there is no ability to hold the facility owner
accountable. She expressed that there are many facilities
across the state that should be investigated, but law limits
doing so. She reiterated that the numbers do not reflect
infractions, but do reflect facilities identified as potential
human and sex trafficking operations operating under the guise
of massage parlors.
4:07:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked whether registered but not regulated
facilities would be investigated by Ms. Birt and DCBPL under HB
110, and asked if the investigative charges would be billed to
the Board of Massage Therapists.
MS. BIRT stated that the number and types of complaints are so
varied that she cannot answer definitively. She said that she
is not sure if the areas of practice [in the complaints] would
be under the jurisdiction of the board for investigative costs.
She noted that if a Rolfer was suspected of practicing massage
therapy, then the division would have to look at potential
unlicensed practice and the cost would go to the board.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP stated that he has been to massage
therapists and Rolfers and has never acknowledged similarities
between the two professions. He asked how Mr. Edwards-Smith
designated similarities.
4:09:23 PM
MR. EDWARDS-SMITH stated that the similarity lies in the idea
that Rolfing is a brand. The United States Patent Office
granted service mark rights for the word "Rolfing" to the Rolf
Institute of Structural Integration in 1979. It is a trademark
brand of a massage modality - a modality that utilizes the
manipulation of soft tissue. He noted that there are many
techniques that are brands. He drew attention to language [from
the International Association of Structural Integrators (IASI),
which read as follows, original punctuation included]:
IASI stays on top of the latest efforts in legislation
and we do our best to inform and affect the law when
possible. Our member surveys have concluded that
structural integrators want the profession to be
recognized as a distinct form of health care. Though
this is a difficult and time-consuming task, IASI is
committed to climbing this mountain with patience and
perseverance.
IASI works for legislation which will allow structural
integrators to maintain their unique place in the
healthcare field, practicing free of unnecessary
restrictions.
MR. EDWARDS-SMITH asked what the difference is between massage
therapy and Rolfing. He stated that massage therapy is a
complex profession with many tiers and levels of competency.
Structural integrators also have a high standard and level of
competency. He expressed that the board is asking to strengthen
language, asking [other modality practitioners] to be certified,
and asking to close a loophole that allows anyone to claim to be
a structural integrator. He stated that structural integrators
and lobbyists notified the board that they support maintaining
the exemption.
4:12:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether a massage facility of
questionable activity involved police action before the board
was created. He asked if Ms. Birt was involved in
investigations related to massage therapy prior to the board's
existence.
4:13:08 PM
MS. BIRT responded that the division was not involved.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL assessed that the licensing board was
created in response to discussion of illicit massage parlors
becoming places where sex trafficking happened as an effort to
tighten up the industry and legitimize those practicing
legitimate massage. Now a board investigator is called to
investigate a potentially illegitimate massage facility. He
noted that now that there is a board, an activity breaking the
same laws has different jurisdiction.
MS. BIRT responded that there is still a law enforcement
component of any investigation, but HB 110 would allow the board
to visit the locations and ask for credentials for massage
therapists operating there. She remarked, "Instead of holding
the trafficking victims accountable for unlicensed practice or
not being able to close down the shop but simply stop that one
person, the state could then close that facility."
4:14:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if that is the result of the Board of
Massage Therapists or of HB 110.
MR. EDWARDS-SMITH answered that it is based on the provisions of
HB 110.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL noted that the bill has not yet been
enacted. He assessed that the massage industry has been
affected by the sex trafficking component, which was one of the
motivations for creating the board. He asked if there has been
similar activity with Rolfing.
MS. BIRT answered, "Not to my knowledge."
4:15:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that it seems police action has been
happening in massage parlors; Rolfers haven't been the source of
illicit activity. He offered his opinion that it might be
better to leave the matter aside. He offered his understanding
that the massage therapy and Rolfing businesses all have to be
licensed by the state and are legitimate businesses in that
sense. He asked if Rolfing competes with massage therapy and is
viewed as competition for providing a similar service.
MR. EDWARDS-SMITH offered his view that HB 110 is a means of
closing an exploitable loophole. He stated that HB 110 should
have no effect on Rolfers. He stated that the board's intention
is to change statute to limit individuals with no background in
massage therapy from hanging up a sign, practicing as a
structural integrator, and avoiding licensure. He stated that
it is in the view of public protection to provide oversight to
ensure that wouldn't happen.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH noted that the businesses must have
business licenses but don't fall under the purview of the Board
of Massage Therapists.
MR. EDWARDS-SMITH agreed. He added that ensuring that a Rolfer
is certified would assure the public that the person has met the
minimum standards in his/her profession and are certified.
CHAIR KITO announced that HB 110 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB110 Sponsor Statement 2.14.17.pdf |
HL&C 2/15/2017 3:15:00 PM |
HB 110 |
| HB110 Supporting Documents - Support Letter Gibbs 2.14.17.msg |
HL&C 2/15/2017 3:15:00 PM |
HB 110 |
| HB110 Version A.PDF |
HL&C 2/15/2017 3:15:00 PM |
HB 110 |
| HB110 Fiscal Note DCCED-DCBPL 2.10.17.pdf |
HL&C 2/15/2017 3:15:00 PM |
HB 110 |
| HB110 Sectional Analysis 2.14.17.pdf |
HL&C 2/15/2017 3:15:00 PM |
HB 110 |
| HB110 Supporting Documents - Support Letters 2.15.17.pdf |
HL&C 2/15/2017 3:15:00 PM |
HB 110 |
| HB110 Supporting Documents - Opposition Letters 2.15.17.pdf |
HL&C 2/15/2017 3:15:00 PM |
HB 110 |