States' attorneys press for licensing of massage therapists; AMTA offers a 650‑hour licensing proposal

State's attorneys and sheriffs told the Senate Committee on Government Operations on April 7 that massage therapists should be licensed rather than just registered, arguing licensing would better protect clients in vulnerable treatment settings.

Kim McManus of the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs said criminal‑justice officials are “generally reactive” but that licensing could proactively filter out bad actors. “We would recommend moving to a licensing requirement not a registration,” McManus said, adding that licensing accompanied by criminal background checks, name and address verification and a requirement for liability insurance would raise the bar for operators who now can post a sign and practice with little public oversight.

Senators asked for empirical evidence to support changing the OPR's current approach. Several members noted OPR’s prior testimony found complaint rates similar to neighboring states and asked for comparative data; McManus and other witnesses acknowledged they did not have comprehensive statewide statistics in the room and asked staff to obtain complaint counts from neighboring jurisdictions.

Christine Hoover, manager for legislative and regulatory affairs at the American Massage Therapy Association, presented a proposed statutory amendment that would: define massage therapy and provide title protection; require a minimum of 650 hours of education from an accredited program or an approved pathway; require passage of a national licensing exam (MBLEx); require proof of liability insurance; allow license‑by‑endorsement for practitioners licensed elsewhere; require establishments to obtain a license (with exemptions for solo practitioners to avoid undue financial burden); create continuing‑education and two‑year renewal cycles; and include legacy provisions so longstanding practitioners have a defined pathway to licensure.

Hoover said licensing is not a “magic bullet” but argued it raises training standards and provides consumers with clearer recourse if misconduct occurs. Committee members pressed about implementation timelines and costs; one senator noted the draft’s effective‑date language printed a surprising year and asked staff to clarify transitional provisions.

The committee recessed without acting on the amendment; members directed staff to collect comparative complaint data, fiscal impacts and OPR’s views on moving from registration to licensure for body‑work professions.