22 - Laserfiche WebLink

AB 1147 Assembly Bill-Bill Analysis Page 22 of 35 submitted to review by the prior Joint Committee on Boards, Commissions and Consumer Protection (Joint Committee) . This was part of the "sunrise review process" which provided that any new proposals to create new licensure or regulatory categories, change licensing requirements, modify scope of practice, or create a new licensing board could be referred to the Joint Committee by the standing committees of the Legislature. (Sunrise review is still required by the standing committees under Section 9148 et seq. of the Government Code for any new categories of licensure or creation of a new licensing board.) This permitted an opportunity for all interested parties to participate in discussing both the pros and cons of such a proposal and for the Joint Committee to make recommendations to the Legislature regarding these proposals. The Joint Committee found that massage therapy is "regulated in California by a chaotic mish-mash of local vice ordinances primarily aimed at controlling illicit 'massage parlors. ' In essence, the current system sought to regulate illegal activity in the guise of professional licensing." The Joint Committee concluded that the current system fails to serve either the public or the profession and that it is appropriate to streamline the regulation of massage therapy at the state level in order to create a more uniform standard. The Joint Committee, on April 12, 2005, issued its recommendation and stated that regulation of massage therapists should be shifted from the current local jurisdiction approach to a state-based approach to provide for more uniform standards. It was also recommended that the state-based approach should be flexible enough to serve the needs of the public, the profession, as well as the legitimate interests of the local governments who currently use existing law for legitimate public policy purposes. The recommended regulatory program for massage therapy was modeled after the regulatory program for tax preparers (BPC 4 22250 et seq.) and interior designers (BPC 4 5800 et seq.) which provide for statutorily created non-profit corporations that have the authority to certify qualified individuals in their respective professions. The following is the legislative history for regulating the massage therapy profession. SB 412 (Figueroa) was introduced in 2005 and was sponsored by the AMTA-CA. SB 412 became a two-year bill and lengthy discussions took place with the League of Cities, California State Association of Counties, local law enforcement, those representing private and public massage schools, massage and related massage therapy associations and organizations, chiropractic and physical therapy associations. This measure, however, failed passage on the Assembly AB 1147 Page 30 Floor at the end of Session in 2006, because of the opposition from both the chiropractic and physical therapy profession regarding the definition of "massage therapy." SB 731 (Oropeza, Chapter 384, Statutes of 2008) was then introduced in 2008, and was almost identical in every aspect to SB 412. The only difference was in the definitions of "approved" and "registered schools" and in the definition of massage therapy. SB 731 which implemented the Massage Therapy Act, shifted the regulation of massage therapists from local jurisdictions to a state-based approach and created a voluntary statewide certification of massage therapists and the Massage Therapy Organization (MTO) with the authority to implement a certification program. The purpose of the MTO was to make the process of certification the same throughout the state, rather than different in each city and county. The California statewide voluntary massage certification program allowed for work in multiple California locations without the need for multiple permits or fees and multiple and differing requirements to provide massage therapy services. hop://lywAvieginfota.gov/pubfl 3-14/bi I I/asm/ab_1 101-1 150/ab_1147_cfa_20140620_l l 11 15_sen_comm.htm I 7/3/2014