June 2nd, 2007 Julie Onofrio
One of the most common questions I get is what will I need to know to pass the NCE exam for my massage licensing?
I have a list of sample test questions at www.thebodyworker.comÂ
and also a list of resources for some free online massage tests.
There are also some books out there with just pages of test questions.
The thing about the exam is that if you did well in massage school you shouldn’t have any probelm with the exam. Your school should have all that you need as far as what you need to know about the exam and how to pass it. They should be offering exam review classes.
Also participating in a study group is very beneficial as you get to review test questions and see what others don’t know and possibly learn some new things.
I personally would not take the NCE if I ever had to for whatever reason. I know some states make it be required to get your license in your state.
There is actually a difference between being nationally certified and just taking the test. I don’t think you have to be nationally certified or maintain you national certification to remain a massage therapist.
There will most likely be some changes coming as there is a new group called the Federation of State Massage Therapy School Boards (FSMTB). They just recently completed a survey of the profession that they are analyzing and hopefully will have some alternatives to the NCE coming soon.
Posted in Licensing and Legislation | 1 Comment »
May 21st, 2007 Julie Onofrio
From the Ramblemuse Keith Grant Massage Politics Sheet
Indiana’s SB 320 Likely Vulnerable to Free Speech Challenge
With the ink barely dry on Indiana’s SB 320, a massage certification act, it appears that part of the act’s stipulations may violate first amendment protections on commercial speech. SB 320 is a title act, restricting the use of specific titles to those who are certified under the law. The is in contrast to a practice act, which makes it illegal to practice unless licensed by the state. Unfortunately, SB 320 restricts use of the generic, descriptive term “massage therapist”, making it difficult for those who legally practice massage but don’t wish to certify or meet the qualifications to certify to truthfully describe their practices. The Institute of Justice is taking on a similar title act in Texas, that prohibits use of the generic term “interior designer”.
In Zauderer V. Office Of Disciplinary Counsel (471 U.S. 626, 1985), the U.S. Supreme Court summarized the protection of commercial speech.
The States and the Federal Government are free to prevent the dissemination of commercial speech that is false, deceptive, or misleading or that proposes an illegal transaction. Commercial speech that is not false or deceptive and does not concern unlawful activities, however, may be restricted only in the service of a substantial governmental interest, and only through means that directly advance that interest.
This Court reaffirmed this principle in Ibanez V. Florida Dept. Of Bus. & Prof. Reg. (No. 93-639 ,1994), a certiorari to the District Court Of Appeals of Florida, First District.
The State may ban such speech only if it is false, deceptive, or misleading. See, e.g., Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626, 638 . If it is not, the State can restrict it, but only upon a showing that the restriction directly and materially advances a substantial state interest in a manner no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest.
The issues, including specificity of title protections an “narrowness of tailoring” a discussed further in Miller v Stuart (No. 96-2068, 11th Circuit District Court, 1997) and Passions Video v Jay Nixon (No. 05-4053, 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, 2006). The latter case notes:
The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.†U.S. Const. amend I. The amendment applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557, 561 (1980).
Indiana had the choice of passing a practice act, making the practice of massage illegal except for those licensed. By making the practice of massage otherwise illegal, a practice act would have fulfilled the “not false, deceptive, misleading, or illegal” requirements for regulating the generic title. In forgoing a practice act but then regulating the generic title, IN SB 320 set up an unnecessary conflict with the first amendment protections of commercial speech. SB 320 should have stuck with defining and protecting a recognizable title not in generic use — in short, a title that, in the commercial world, could have been trademarked. Legally consistent occupational regulation is clearly a still evolving art.
Posted in Licensing and Legislation | No Comments »
May 9th, 2007 Julie Onofrio
The National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork or the NCBTMB is the organization who oversees the testing process for massage therapy licensing.
The organization has been very controversial since it’s inception in 1998. I wrote a summary of what I saw happening at the time and from reading some articles on it in Massage Magazine.
There currently has been a lot problems in dealing with this agency. They don’t return phone calls or emails. If you are a newly licensed therapist, there has been delays in getting your license and getting any help. I get a few emails a month asking me where they should go to take the NCE test or other questions about the exam. People should be contacting the NCBTMB.
The latest problem seems to be that their board members are resigning and there was some problem with board members keeping up their certification. The board members said they didn’t get any notice that their certification was up.
Massage Today (March issue) and May issue has some of the latest information, along with Keith Grant on his blog.
There is also a new organization being formed that will represent the massage boards. They did a survey and are taking matters into their own hands of creating an exam for the profession that will hopefully allow for reciprocal licensing and fair licensing.
I actually don’t understand everything that is happening in the political arena. I have tried to decipher it all and understand the process of what it takes and why we actually need licensing - if we do at all. There isn’t any one forum or information source that can really supply all of the information that one needs to make sense of it all.
Why do we need to be licensed? To protect the public? To protect ourselves? Is there any proof of harm? How is massage defined? What are the minimum requirements that a person needs to perform massage safely and competently? How is safety and competency defined? Who, what is behind all of this information that says we need to be licensed? If massage has been practice for the thousands of years that history shows, why do we need all of this licensing now?
Just some thoughts. I don’t know the answer. A part of me doesn’t really care because it is so overwhelming and there are such heated discussions about these issues. I know for myself that when I get triggered by things like this that is isn’t really about the issue at hand but something deeper in me, but most people don’t realize that and they continue to argue and fight amongst themselves. My focus is on what can I do to help massage therapists grow as individuals and as a profession and get a clear idea of what they are really doing and why.
At times I have thought that what our profession needs more is some sort of mediation to resolve all of these political issues by someone like Marshall Rosenberg or Byron Katie so that we can all learn to sort out our projections and get down to what we all really want which I am guessing is really the same thing - we want to practice massage and bring healing touch to the public.
Posted in Licensing and Legislation | No Comments »
April 28th, 2007 Julie Onofrio
One of the major misconceptions about massage licensing is that people think that the National Certification Exam will allow them to practice in any state that they want. There is also confusion over what you are actually being certified for.
Certification in massage is not necessarily what you need to be a successful and competent massage therapist nor is it the same as licensing.
The NCE is a test that is given by The National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork (NCBTMB) and many states require that you take the test in order to get your massage therapy license.  The states may also require that you take a different number of hours of education than the NCE requires. You have to check each states licensing requirements and fullfill those requirements.
I am also looking into the facts regarding this as the NCBTMB also requires that you recertify every so often but it is not necessary to do that to maintain you license. Many often find the certification a waste of money and they do not renew their certification. I for one have never been asked in 18 years of practice if I was certified and I was only challenged on my license once and that was recently by a woman who appeared to be “off her meds”.
I have some personal biases against national certification mainly from the process of it’s creation that I witnessed early in my career.
There is a new agency being formed called the Federation of Massage Therapy Boards is in the process of anaylzing a survey they did on the profession and some of the early results show that most want some form of licensing but they don’t want different levels of certification or licensing.
I think people think we need to be licensed because they are buying into the fear being created by the NCE and different states. While most may think that it is necessary, there is no proof that it is necessary. Most are reacting thinking that it will mean that just anyone can go and hang out a shingle and practice massage. I see this more from people who have had advanced training and while I am not sure if it is due to their wanting to protect their status and legitimize having spent so much money for all of the continuing education or if it is truly something that is needed.
Even in licensed states there are people who are trying to practice without a license and they are being reported and prosecuted. Does that really mean that they are not qualified to do massage? Did they learn on their own? Who would just go and do massage on a whim without any experience or training -even if it was just from a book or video? I guess they are out there, but I would also guess if they weren’t any good that they wouldn’t be able to build or stay in business.
I don’t know where I am going with this but am just rambling…Where is the licensing and legislation debate going to lead the profession? What is happening to the art of massage? If massage has been around for the hundreds and even thousands of years that the history shows- why now do we need licensing all of a sudden?
Posted in Licensing and Legislation | No Comments »
April 9th, 2007 Julie Onofrio
Compiled by Carl W. Nelson from articles by Keith Eric
Grant, David Palmer, Richard Bergess, and Judith
McKinnon
There have been two new laws under consideration by
lawmakers in California and San Francisco.
03 January 2004
Congratulations to the San Francisco Ordinance
Coalition
The coalition of organizations and schools working on
creating a new San Francisco ordinance more congenial
to the interests of massage practitioners has
succeeded. The new ordinance defines 100- and 200-hour
training tiers and includes moving the administration
of the massage permit authority from the Police
Department to the Department of Public Health.
A rather unique aspect of the San Francisco law is
that it recognizes a legitimate role for
sensual/erotic massage as well as a role for
therapeutic/relaxation massage. In contrast, the
California legislative Assembly Bill AB 1388, as a
practice act, basically attempts to eliminate the
former category, partly by eligibility requirements
and partly by advertising restrictions. It’s nice to
see an alternative approach that aims to achieve some
differentiation for therapeutic/relaxation massage and
leaves adult entertainment as a local option. Here’s a
quote from the San Francisco Ordinance Coalition
position statement.
The adult entertainment industry, which initiated this
new ordinance, is very sincere in its desire to make
massage parlors safe and profitable for the women who
work in them. Most San Francisco elected officials
have no desire to wipe out the massage parlors, so the
net result is that therapeutic/relaxation
practitioners have to coexist, for the time being,
with adult entertainment practitioners. We have come
to the best compromise that we believe possible at
this time.
San Francisco is unique in that the Board of
Supervisors does not see massage parlors as a ‘legal’
issue; they prefer to see massage parlor prostitution
decriminalized except when there is a victim of a
crime. San Francisco city officials are primarily
concerned with human trafficking offenses and the
proliferation of sexually transmitted diseases.
The new ordinance also sheds some light on successful
two-tier implementations. Where two-tier laws are
successful, they have been based on differentiation in
massage establishment licensing (or as in, for
example, San Francisco the permitting process), an
inherently local affair. The differentiation is in
whether one can establish an individual practice, do
outcalls, or practice in one’s home. This is evident
in the Coachella Valley system and in the current law
and future hope for zoning changes in San Francisco.
It is also in marked contrast to scope of practice
differentiation that had been proposed for the
now-defunct Assembly Bill AB 1388. Scope of practice
differentiation basically restricts what a lower tier
can practice rather than where and when they can
practice. A desire to stay with zoning-based tier
systems may well be an argument in favor of keeping
regulation at the local level.
State Level
The effort by the American Massage Therapy Association
(AMTA) to regulate massage at the state level, require
500 hours of in-class supervised instruction, and
require all bodyworkers to take the National
Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage and
Bodywork (NCBTMB) $250 written National Certification
Examination (NCE) has been postponed until 2005 at the
request in December 2003 of its sponsors. (see
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov) The California legislative
Assembly Bill AB 1388 did not move through the sunrise
review in the Business and Professions Committee of
the Assembly due to overwhelming opposition to
licensing of massage therapy. This is because of the
massive protests by California’s bodyworkers and
non-student-loan massage schools when they found out
that the real purpose of AB 1388 was to allow the
AMTA-approved massage schools to capture and control
the bodywork industry in California and put all
non-AMTA bodyworkers and schools out of business.
Posted in Licensing and Legislation | 25 Comments »
