Committee debate centers on statewide massage registration as proponents and opponents clash

Senate File 11‑31, a proposal to create a statewide registration and licensing system for massage therapy and Asian body work, drew a lengthy hearing and sharply divided testimony before the Senate State and Local Government Committee on March 27.

The bill, presented by Senator Hoffman, would replace more than 100 local ordinances with a single statewide framework, set minimum education and training standards, require background checks, and create a council to advise the commissioner on credentialing and examinations. "This bill creates a more active and connected community," said Rachel Romanelli, a licensed massage therapist and government relations chair for the American Massage Therapy Association (AMTA) Minnesota chapter, arguing Minnesota is one of three states without mandatory regulation.

Supporters framed the proposal as public‑safety and consumer‑protection legislation. AMTA and other proponents told the committee that inconsistent municipal rules—examples cited ranged from zero hours required in some towns to 600 in others—leave enforcement gaps and allow bad actors to move between jurisdictions. Christine Huber of AMTA said registration would "require background checks for all massage practitioners, and create a system to address ethical violations and disciplinary concerns." Carrie Borchardt, a psychiatrist who testified in favor, recounted a 2024 assault she reported and said local patchwork rules impeded tracking alleged perpetrators.

Opponents urged caution or rejection. Petra Bridal, a Minnesota attorney and board member of the Minnesota Natural Health Coalition, told the committee, "There's really no good evidence that any type of regulation will lead to any lessening of trafficking," and cautioned that the committee must follow Minnesota Statute 2.14 on occupational regulation analysis. Several witnesses representing unlicensed practitioners argued the state’s existing Chapter 146A protections are sufficient and that mandatory licensing would disadvantage low‑income and culturally specific modalities. Leo B. Cashman said the profession risks being narrowed to those who can afford standardized credentials: "We would like to see that 1‑46‑A is the continuing way that massage therapy is regulated in our state," he said.

Witnesses offered competing data and policy claims. Romanelli estimated "approximately 5,000 practitioners" statewide, with 300–400 graduates annually and 14 training programs; she said 108 of Minnesota’s 856 cities regulate massage businesses. Sean Blodgett, a traditional naturopath opposing the bill, said the proposal would remove important client disclosures required under 146A and could hurt cultural modalities by imposing standardized education and examination requirements that are neither multilingual nor inclusive.

Committee members pressed authors on details such as limits of practice, council composition, and credentialing examinations. Senator Barr and others asked whether the bill lists specific prohibitions or instead defines the allowed scope; Senator Hoffman pointed to definitions and a proposed advisory council to set exam and credential standards.

After testimony and questions, the committee adopted the author’s A‑1 amendment (including technical changes agreed with Judiciary) and laid the amended bill over for possible inclusion.

Procedural outcome: The bill as amended was laid over for possible inclusion; no final floor referral was made in this hearing.