Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
02/17/2017 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
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 110 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 110-MASSAGE THERAPY LICENSING; EXEMPTIONS
3:17:56 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."
3:18:18 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 would add language
allowing the Board of Massage Therapists to adopt regulations
governing massage therapy establishments. The proposed
legislation would: increase the number of hours for in-class
supervised instruction and clinical work at an approved massage
school from 500 to 625 hours; reduce the number of hours of
blood-borne pathogen education from four hours to two hours; and
allow the board to issue exemptions from the licensing
requirements for practitioners of certain professions who submit
an application, pay a registration fee, and submit proof that
they meet the exemptions. She noted that HB 110 does not extend
any regulatory or statutory authority of other professions to
the board, but it would ensure that the department knows who is
practicing.
3:19:57 PM
CHAIR KITO opened public testimony on HB 110.
3:20:10 PM
MARK HUTTON, Rolfer, testified in opposition to HB 110. He
referred to a letter he wrote to the committee [included in the
committee packet], which he stated is truthful, verifiable, and
consistent with the common good. He expressed that those
proposing the bill have said that the bill is not about
regulating the Rolfing and structural integration community but
is merely a registry required to combat rampant human and sex
trafficking. He offered his opinion that such comments are
misleading and untrue. He directed attention to one of the
proposed duties of the Board of Massage Therapists proposed
under HB 110, paragraph (3), on page 4, lines 1 and 2, which
read as follows:
(3) establish by regulation standards and
requirements for persons applying for an exemption
under this section.
MR. HUTTON stated that he opposes paragraph (3). He
characterized human and sex trafficking as sick behaviors that
do great harm to the public and need to be policed. He noted
that the most recent criminal charge against a Rolfer was in
Minnesota in 2010, and the Rolfer thereafter lost his
certification. The most recent among a long list of criminal
charges against massage therapists was on January 18, 2017. He
remarked,
What bothers me is it seems unconscionable that you
would use this kind of puritan, red, white, and blue,
all American banner, which everyone agrees with, to
slip in a clause or a phrase that in essence and in
truth places regulation on my industry under another
unrelated industry.
MR. HUTTON stated that the current registry is effective. He
urged the committee not to adopt a registry that serves no
purpose. He commented that the state needs fiscal
accountability and a needs-based assessment before changing
current law. He opined that the committee deserves accurate
information and truthful testimony. He noted that the
legislative process allows for spirited debate of issues and
points of view but there is no place for misleading information.
He urged the committee to read a letter from the chair of the
International Association of Structural Integrators (IASI) Law
and Regulation Committee [included in the committee packet] to
find correct information.
MR. HUTTON informed the committee that his client received a
response from a committee member's office that said [the member]
respects the client's opinion but would proceed on his/her
current trajectory, the client was misinformed, and the bill
would give Rolfers a professional status. He assessed that the
member's response was preconceived and showed that the end
result was valued more than the search for truth; he advised
that public hearings should weigh opinions and information. He
asked the committee to dismiss untrue and unsubstantiated claims
and produce legislation that would actually target the risks of
sex trafficking in the massage industry.
3:24:35 PM
LAURA EMBERTON, Director, Government Relations, Associated
Bodyworks & Massage Professionals (ABMP), testified in
opposition to HB 110. She stated that ABMP is one of the
largest professional associations for massage therapists and
bodyworkers in the country with over 80,000 members nationwide
and more than 300 members in Alaska. She stated that ABMP
believes that human trafficking often goes through the massage
industry. She recommended addressing the problem by increasing
criminal punishments, providing counseling for victims, and
allowing local governments to conduct inspections to determine
whether all businesses have the licenses necessary. She opined
that local governments should have the authority to inspect all
businesses. She expressed that establishment licensing creates
an unfair financial and logistical burden on people doing things
legally. She assessed that the bill would only affect those
acting legally, not those performing illegal actions.
MS. EMBERTON stated that ABMP is in favor of moving to 625
hours, but asked for a grandfathering clause for those currently
enrolled in a 500-hour school. She added that changing the
requirement would create an issue for someone with a license
coming from another state. She suggested that the issue could
be solved with an endorsement of out-of-state licenses, hours of
practice, and an individual's lack of disciplinary actions. She
claimed that ABMP's main opposition to HB 110 is with the
registry for exempt modalities, which she compared to a person
having to register and pay to not have a license. She remarked:
If a practice is not regulated, those practitioners
should not be required to register and pay an
arbitrary fee not to have a license. To require a
person to apply, pay a fee, and submit proof
satisfactory to the board is subjective and opens the
process up to ... potential abuse. In most regulated
states, bodywork professionals are not required to
obtain a license or to register to practice their
profession.
MS. EMBERTON acknowledged that there are bad actors in the body
work profession, but stated that requiring licensing is not the
solution. She asked the committee to get rid of the section in
HB 110 regarding the registry, to adjust the 625-hour
requirement to account for those operating under the current
statute, and to "get rid of the massage ... therapy
establishments."
3:28:41 PM
RYAN RICE, Rolfing Student, testified in opposition to HB 110.
He stated that he is in training to become a Rolfer, which
involves extensive time on the subjects of therapeutic
relationships and sex trafficking. He recommended that HB 110
be dropped or reconsidered.
3:29:54 PM
AMANDA NOSICH testified in support of HB 110. She drew on her
experience as the former chair of the Board of Massage
Therapists. She stated that at board meetings, the [Federal
Bureau of Investigations] (FBI) and other state agencies
requested to have massage establishments regulated, and the
board felt it was necessary because of human and sex
trafficking. The registration of exemptions would prevent
illicit businesses from reopening under a different exempted
modality after being shut down. She mentioned that the board's
intention is to stop human and sex trafficking, not just move it
to another business.
MS. NOSICH noted that the 625-hour requirement would have a two-
year leniency to allow people currently enrolled in a 500-hour
program to finish. The board has previously spoken about adding
a regulation to allow licensure of out-of-state licensees who
have graduated with 500 hours and have written documentation and
notary of education or clinical experience totaling 125 hours.
She expressed that the board is not seeking to overregulate
Rolfers or any other exempted modality. She acknowledged that
the modalities are different; the board is looking to stop
moving the human and sex trafficking to other businesses.
3:32:43 PM
EDWARD TOAL, Rolfer, testified in opposition to HB 110. He
contradicted previous testimony which informed the committee
that current statute allows anyone to hang a shingle and claim
an exemption from a massage license requirement by stating
he/she is a Rolfer or structural integrator without the
authorities' knowledge of his/her professional legitimacy. He
drew attention to the requirements listed in AS 08.61.080, which
read as follows:
(10) person engaged only in the practice of
structural integration for restoring postural balance
and functional ease by integrating the body in gravity
using a system of fascial manipulation and awareness
who has graduated from a program or is a current
member of an organization recognized by the
International Association of Structural Integrators,
including the Rolf Institute of Structural
Integration;
MR. TOAL emphasized that a person must be a graduate of a
particular group of trainings and be monitored by IASI to claim
the exemption. He expressed that although previous testimony
denied it, HB 110 would attempt to regulate exempt
practitioners. He referenced HB 110, page 4, lines 1 and 2,
which read as follows: "establish by regulation standards and
requirements for persons applying for an exemption under this
section." He explained that under HB 110, his profession's
exception would be moved out of protected statutory language and
placed under the authority of the Board of Massage Therapists,
which is not qualified to regulate the exemption.
3:35:03 PM
BARBARA MAIER, Certified Advanced Rolfer, testified in
opposition to HB 110. She stated that she has had a Rolfing
practice in Anchorage for 35 years. She referenced emails she
sent to committee members [included in the committee packet].
She expressed that she supports legislation addressing human and
sex trafficking in Alaska, and she offered her opinion that HB
110 would not achieve that desired end. She drew attention to
HB 110, Section 5, line 14, which would repeal four categories
of statutory [exceptions] but would leave nine intact. She
opined that singling out structural integration is punitive.
She stated that no evidence of problems within the structural
integration profession has been brought to the board, the FBI,
or the Department of Public Safety.
MS. MAIER mentioned documents from IASI [included in the
committee packet] that explain the scope of practice and ethical
standards of structural integration, and she said the documents
argue that structural integration is a distinct and separate
profession. She stated her opposition to Section 5 of HB 110,
which she said would give complete jurisdiction to the board to
control policy and procedure. The proposed bill calls for a
registry of exempted persons and establishes regulations and
requirements for exemptions, which she expressed is
"unacceptable and intolerable."
MS. MAIER noted that under HB 110, structural integrators would
be controlled by a board with no knowledge or appreciation of
the profession. She said that structural integrators do not
want to be associated with the massage industry and its
problems. She remarked, "We are not part of their problems, and
we are not a part of their solution." She stated that it is
ridiculous to suggest that registering exemptions would solve
the sex trafficking issue. She added that she has not had any
kind or productive encounters with the board. She offered her
impression that the board has harassed structural integrators
for three years by withholding information and has done so under
the guise of [preventing] sex trafficking. She opined that the
proposed legislation is an attempt of one industry to control
another. She asked the committee to vote down HB 110 or at
least strike pages 3 and 4 of the bill.
3:40:30 PM
GAIL BOERWINKLES, Rolfer, testified in opposition to HB 110.
She referenced the previously cited language in HB 110, on page
4, line 1 and analyzed that that language would give the board
complete decision-making authority on regulations although there
is no representation for structural integrators on the board.
She noted that the board's authority would not be based on
standards or input from structural integrators, and she
characterized the authority as severe overreach. She stated
that while she respects the effort to stop sex trafficking, she
sees no correlation between Rolfers and the massage therapy
establishments that have "bad people doing bad things." She
expressed that finding herself put on a prostitute watch list
feels awful. She urged the committee to stop HB 110. She
suggested that the board tweak the hours required of massage
therapists if needed.
3:42:44 PM
JEN LANDRY, American Organization for Bodywork Therapies of
Asia, testified in opposition to HB 110. She stated that since
2004, she has been a practicing bodywork professional and has
been certified with the American Organization for Bodywork
Therapies of Asia (AOBTA) and the National Certification
Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (NCCAOM). She
offered her understanding that her practices and expertise are
exempt from current statute; her eastern approach is focused on
meridians and pressure points, not muscle tissue. She noted
that the statutory language is vague for professions other than
Rolfers. She urged that all proposed legislation in this realm
have more specific language for other bodywork professionals.
She stated that current statute and HB 110 are biased against
practitioners making a living in rural areas with a small
population base. She expressed that the fees imposed by the HB
110 would likely be beyond what she could absorb as a part-time
professional and would be an undue burden. She aired that she
does not find HB 110 to be in the best interest of the community
or industry professionals.
3:44:53 PM
MARY REIMANN, President, Alaska Reflexology Association (AKRA),
testified in opposition to HB 110. She stated that she
considers the proposed bill to be horribly written and considers
it extreme to change things every two years. She noted that she
does not want the Board of Massage Therapists to set standards
for her as a reflexologist. She stated that she has much more
training in her profession than the board members. She
acknowledged that human trafficking is a concern, but it is not
related to the professions [reclassified in HB 110]. She
explained that massage practices involve removal of clothing,
while reflexology clients only remove shoes and socks. She
listed other professions where touch over clothing is involved
such as yoga instructors, shoe shiners, and personal trainers.
She expressed that these professions are not in the same
category [as massage]. She noted that Rolfers and
reflexologists have been singled out in the wording of HB 110.
She urged the committee to vote against HB 110.
3:48:01 PM
DAYLE SHERBA testified in opposition to HB 110. She offered her
opinion that the bill is a solution looking for a problem. She
stated that she is opposed to human trafficking. She expressed
that the modalities [reclassified in HB 110] are very different
from massage. She noted that she disagrees with Mr. [Edwards-
Smith]'s testimony in a prior meeting regarding a task analysis
which concluded that the other modalities are similar to
massage. She restated that the modalities are very different.
3:49:11 PM
SONJA WAY, Government Relations Specialist, Federation of State
Massage Therapy Boards (FSMTB), testified in support of HB 110.
She remarked:
The federation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit governed by
massage therapy state licensing boards and agencies in
the United States. Our mission is to support our 43
member boards, including the Alaska Board of Massage
Therapists, in their work to ensure that the practice
of massage therapy is provided ... to the public in a
safe and effective manner. In support of the Alaska
Board of Massage Therapists, FSMTB wishes to offer
information on regulation of the practice of massage
and bodywork therapy. The first school of massage
therapy in the United States was established in 1916
and the profession has grown and evolved in many
different ways, both formal and informal, since then.
Today, massage therapists are frequently working with
other professions as a part of a team of healthcare
providers. Massage therapists are often a first point
of contact for the consumer in prevention,
identification, assessment, treatment, and
rehabilitation of many pathologies and conditions.
Therefore, uniform regulation is needed to protect the
public.
MS. WAY stated that the FSMTB developed a Model Practice Act
(MPA) to provide a comprehensive resource to assist regulators
with statutory language based upon the collective wisdom of the
massage therapy regulatory community. The MPA contained a
recommended definition of the practice of massage therapy and
used broad descriptions reflecting practice rather than
identifying the therapeutic approach by name. She noted that
FSMTB encourages the broad language in order to recognize the
authority of the board to interpret the services and activities
defined in the scope through rulemaking and administrative
operations.
MS. WAY explained that FSMTB conducted a job task analysis in
2007 and 2013 to assess the necessary skills and knowledge of
entry level practitioners. The analysis concluded that massage
therapists, bodywork therapists, and somatic therapists have a
nearly perfect alignment of frequency and importance of tasks
performed. She reiterated that FSMTB supports the public
protection of citizens through HB 110.
3:52:27 PM
MARY O'REILLY, Director of Examinations, Federation of State
Massage Therapy Boards (FSMTB), said that she concurred with Ms.
Way's testimony.
3:52:45 PM
IRIS AHARONOVICH, Chair, Legislation and Education Committee,
Reflexology Association of America, testified in opposition to
HB 110. She stated her support of Christine Issel's written
testimony [included in the committee packet]. She explained
that she started working in reflexology 20 years ago in Israel,
where reflexology is very different from massage and is
recognized as a therapeutic method. In Israel, reflexology is
considered medical care and is paid for by insurance companies
and the government. It is a health service that citizens can
receive in hospitals and medical centers. Doctors refer
patients to reflexologists. She analyzed that reflexology is
very different from massage; they are two different and
unrelated techniques and methods. She explained that
reflexology deals with nerves and organs; massage deals with
muscles.
3:54:28 PM
LAUREN PAAP, President, American Organization for Bodywork
Therapies of Asia (AOBTA), testified in opposition to HB 110.
She explained that FSMTB has been working with state boards
across the nation to expand the scope of authority with the
claimed intent to solve human trafficking. She stated that the
federation's claim is a guise. She said AOBTA attempted to work
collaboratively with FSMTB to define scopes of authority, but
FSMTB defined the scope without AOBTA's input or support. She
explained that FSMTB has treated the verb "massage" as a noun
synonymous with an industry. She remarked, "They tried to say
that anyone who touches the body, therefore, is massage." She
stated that although it maybe be true in the sense of the verb,
it is not true in the sense of the scope of authority. She
expressed that FSMTB does not want to define what a massage
therapist is so that people can self-identify; this is happening
in many states, and it works to expand the scope of authority of
massage. She stated that a clear exemption is needed for
practitioners of bodywork with certified professional
memberships. She concluded that AOBTA is not opposed to people
checking on bodywork professionals, but is opposed to HB 110.
3:58:07 PM
JILL MOTZ testified in support of HB 110. She stated that she
doesn't believe asking bodyworkers to prove themselves to be who
they claim to be is burdensome or unreasonable. She explained
that HB 110 would not require exempted practitioners to apply
for a license or to comply with massage therapists' regulations.
She expressed that the proposed legislation is not an attempt to
compare massage therapists and the other modalities or increase
competition, but the bill asks the practitioners of other
modalities to provide their credentials. An exemption would
last for approximately 10 years. She remarked, "We're asking
for an exemption, not a full application." She expressed that
the registration fee is not likely to be high and the board is
not trying to oversee anyone. She stated her understanding that
the bill is an attempt to solve a problem with which law
enforcement has asked for help. She noted that many massage
therapists also practice structural integration.
4:00:42 PM
GRETCHEN GRAEFF, Massage Therapist and Rolfer, testified in
opposition to HB 110. She stated that the board appears to have
put in tremendous effort to expand its regulation jurisdiction,
and doing so has distracted the board from its current
jurisdiction. She expressed that she has concern about
criminals interfacing with the massage profession, but the
board's focus should be on the interface between the profession
and clients. She said that she finds HB 110 questionable and of
great concern. She pointed out that universal precautions for
infections are outdated; they were developed to protect health
care workers from getting infections from exposure to blood.
Since then, the [Centers for Disease Control] (CDC) has expanded
its recommendations for infection control. She stated that she
opposes the idea of being required to continue education in an
outdated mode. She opined that the board's role is an odd
combination of oversight and "undersight." She suggested that a
solution to the problem would be to add "standard" precautions
to universal precautions. She agreed that human traffickers
exploit her profession, but she does not believe HB 110 is the
solution.
4:04:54 PM
DEVRON HELLINGS testified in opposition to HB 110. She noted
that she has been a Rolfing, acupuncture, and therapeutic
massage client. She stated that she is aware of the different
levels of education, training, and peer review required for
Rolfers and acupuncturists. The professions require diplomas or
certifications, adhere to industry standards and national
protocols, and do not belong under the jurisdiction of the Board
of Massage Therapists. She said that she does not intend to be
critical of massage therapists, but she opined that their
training lacks the sophistication and financial commitment
required of Rolfers and acupuncturists. Rolfers and
acupuncturists do not relocate their practices at a whim; they
establish long-term business practices. She acknowledged that
there is concern of human trafficking in Alaska. She said she
had heard reports from the FBI Human Trafficking Task Force
while attending conventions of the Association of Village
Council Presidents and the Alaska Federation of Natives.
MS. HELLINGS remarked, "The massage board and its industry
concerns over human trafficking is simply a charade. Its true
objective is to impugn and diminish the profession of Rolfing
and structural integration by subjugating them to its power and
control." She said HB 110 affiliates Rolfing and structural
integration professionals with the massage industry although the
professions are distinctly different. She opined that HB 110 is
bureaucratic overreach and would unnecessarily govern and
regulate the Rolfing, acupuncture, and reflexology industries.
She offered her belief that including Rolfers and structural
integration practitioners with the massage industry is a
travesty. She aired that HB 110 is an attack from the board on
the integrity and reputation of the Rolfing industry. She urged
the committee to vote against HB 110.
4:07:27 PM
KAY BROWN testified in opposition to HB 110. She stated that
she supports the previous testimonies of members of the Rolfing
community. She noted that despite prior contrary testimony, the
bill gives power to the board to regulate Rolfers and other
modalities. She drew attention to HB 110, page 3, line 28 to
page 4, line 2, which directs the board to adopt regulations,
standards, and requirements for the exempted groups. She
remarked, "This is in contradiction to what has been stated as
the intent of the bill." She urged the committee to remove the
aforementioned lines, leave the exemptions in place, and find
another solution to address the registry issue.
4:09:47 PM
SHARON LEE, Feldenkrais Practitioner, testified in opposition to
HB 110. She requested that her profession's current exception
remain in place. She stated that HB 110 should be limited to
regulating only massage therapists, which is the only profession
that falls within the scope of practice of the board. Each
discipline currently exempted in statute has a specific set of
skills, education, scope of practice, and professional conduct,
and thus should remain separate from the Board of Massage
Therapists.
MS. LEE explained that the Feldenkrais Method is a method of
learning shown to have therapeutic benefits. It uses movement
and directed attention to increase awareness and function.
Feldenkrais students become aware of existing patterns of action
and the method guides a discovery of additional possibilities of
action. She noted that the Feldenkrais Method facilitates
recovery of movement, improves skills, and enhances learning.
Touch is one element of the learning process that may or may not
be used in Feldenkrais lessons. In lessons that do involve
touch, the student is fully clothed and the intent of touch is
to promote learning, and touch is gentle, non-invasive, and non-
corrective. She explained that certified Feldenkrais teachers
complete 800 hours of specialized training over a three- to
four-year period. Massage therapists complete 500 hours of
training in a shorter amount of time. She remarked:
The Feldenkrais Guild has developed and enforced
accreditation and certification standards for the
Feldenkrais Method profession since 1977, and teachers
must graduate from an accredited Feldenkrais program,
be certified, fulfill the requirements for annual
certification renewal, continue education, and adhere
to the strict code of professional conduct, ...
ethics, and standards of practice.
MS. LEE informed that Feldenkrais.com provides a way to find all
certified Feldenkrais practitioners in Alaska, which is much
less expensive than creating legislation for a registry. She
offered her opinion that there should be no change to the
existing exemptions.
4:13:14 PM
CHRISTINE ISSEL, American Reflexology Certification Board (ARCB)
testified in opposition to HB 110. She stated that ARCB agrees
with the structural integrators and others who have testified
against the bill. She requested that the committee vote against
HB 110.
4:14:10 PM
TRACI GILMOUR, Massage Therapist, testified in support of HB
110. She commented that massage therapists want to deliver the
best massage possible in a safe environment. She remarked:
We're all body workers with different training. None
of our therapies stands out as superior, we just
deliver a different product, and in the end we all
manipulate soft tissue and work to decrease your pain
and help you feel better. We complement each other,
support each other, encourage, and share clients. We
refer to all other modalities or therapies. We work
under the clouded stigma that our profession was and
in some cases is known for offering sexual favors. We
know that our profession is a haven for sex
trafficking.
MS. GILMOUR explained that the exemptions are different because
practitioners of the exempted professions generally practice
only one therapy. Bodyworkers who have become licensed massage
therapists are able to bill insurance companies. She offered
her opinion that licensing requirements have added credibility
and respect to the massage profession. She indicated that
working cooperatively with all investigative agencies would
decrease the prevalence of human and sex trafficking. She
stated that closing loopholes would offer protection to
everyone, and increasing education requirements would improve
the knowledge of therapists.
MS. GILMOUR noted that other testifiers have mentioned their
concerns with the portion of the bill requiring exemptions to
prove their certification. She expressed that HB 110 would
increase the ability for investigators to enter studios of
exempted practitioners and would allow investigations to focus
on establishments suspected to be illegally practicing massage.
She offered her understanding that HB 110 may look and feel like
government overreach and that it may be a burden to some. She
stated her desire to have the state and industry be a "brick
wall" for human traffickers and to no longer be a safe haven to
conduct illegal activities. She encouraged the passage of HB
110.
4:17:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON referred to the recommendation of a
previous testifier [Ms. Graeff] to add "standard" precautions to
universal precautions in the requirements proposed under HB 110.
He asked Ms. Gilmour to comment.
MS. GILMOUR stated that the recommendation has been suggested in
previous board meetings.
4:18:14 PM
CHAIR KITO announced that HB 110 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|