For several years, we have been dealing with the possibility of licensure of wellness practices in Massachusetts. Perhaps there would be some way to license these practices in a constructive way. However, the proposed system in Massachusetts would have a devastating effect on these practices.
This Monday, July 10, the licensure bill will be heard by the Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Licensure.
If you have ever benefited from Reiki, yoga, tai chi, chi gung, meditation, Jin Shin Jyutsu, polarity therapy or any type of currently unlicensed wellness practice, take action. We have been fighting this proposed legislation for several years, and at every step, it has been the sincere voices of clients and practitioners that has been effective. Your voice matters!
Here is the link that explains how to submit testimony or send email: URGENT Say No to Licensing Alternative Therapies in Massachusetts! — Reiki Unified Although sending email before July 10 would be ideal, it is still worth sending if you miss that deadline.
If you don’t live in Massachusetts, you can still write to legislators on the committee. This bill is considered to be a test case for similar efforts in other states. What happens in Massachusetts will affect the practice of traditional wellness practices across the United States.
If you think that somehow this legislation won’t affect you (“I already have licensure in another discipline, I am a certified practitioner so surely I can be easily licensed, I don’t consider my work to be a health practice, etc.”) think again. This legislation would be far-reaching and all-encompassing.
I hope you will share this blog with your contacts. We need a strong response to preserve our access to wellness practices.
Below you will see my written testimony to the committee. The link above includes suggestions for how to write your own email. You can also find more information about the licensure issue in my blog entry of 12/13/21.
MY WRITTEN TESTIMONY TO THE COMMITTEE
I appreciate the opportunity to present testimony in opposition to S191/H282. I am a client, a practitioner, and a teacher of traditional wellness methods. I am certified in several methods from various parts of the world, including a Japanese practice called Reiki.
I would like explain a bit about my profession. All of my practices are completely safe, with no risk of harm. I use light touch, with the client fully clothed. There are no needles, no pressure, and no substances. The worst outcome I can produce is no improvement, but that rarely occurs. My clients generally benefit from my sessions, experiencing relaxation, greater vitality, and symptom reduction.
I am not a health care provider; what I do is not an “alternative healing therapy.” Health care providers evaluate clients, diagnose disease, and treat particular conditions. I don’t do any of that. I assist the client’s system to reach a state of balance, harmony, and vitality. I support the client’s natural healing process. My practice is complementary to health care. My clients are monitored and treated by medical doctors and other licensed health care providers.
I love my work. I love helping people. But this profession can be quite difficult.I work long hours. My clients are often in crisis, and I experience secondary stress. My income is moderate. I am self-employed, so I receive no employment benefits — no paid time off, no 401K, no type of employer-sponsored health insurance, and no unemployment insurance. My only safety net is my savings account.
My training and ethical codes require that I not consider myself or present myself as a health care provider. Our society does not consider me to be a health care provider. Health care insurers will not pay for my services. These days, some insurance policies include coverage for acupuncturists or chiropractors, or even massage therapists. Absolutely no health insurance policy will pay for services like mine.
Many health care costs can be itemized as personal deductions for tax purposes, such as doctor visits, physical therapy, chiropractic and acupuncture. My services cannot be included as medical deductions.
The legal system does not consider what I do to be health care. I have worked with clients who had accidents and were pursuing insurance claims or lawsuits. Whereas their lawyers relied upon health care providers for records and/or testimony, I have never been involved. My opinion is meaningless in a legal setting.
I do carry liability insurance, but my liability insurance premium is a fraction of the premiums for health care providers. Insurance companies are precise in their statistics; they know that claims against practitioners in my field are rare to nonexistent.
According to the norms of my own methods, our health insurance system, our liability insurance system, our tax system, and our legal system, I am not a health care provider. However, the sponsors of this bill want you to treat me and my colleagues like “therapists” only in the area of licensure.
Why? Because there have been so many complaints about harm from practitioners like me? No. Consumer complaints were not the motivation for this bill. This bill has a long history and has been proposed multiple times. It was originally proposed as a way to fight human trafficking. Significantly, that particular justification has been dropped. We have shown, over the course of many years and many hearings, that our legitimate practices have no relationship whatsoever with human trafficking. And we have shown that licensing us would have little effect on human trafficking.
Each time this bill is brought forth, there is an outcry from clients, practitioners, and teachers. Our professions don’t lend themselves well to the type of regulation proposed in this bill. The proposed system would make it harder for us to practice and would put many of us out of business. We keep explaining this over and over.
Should a profession be licensed just for the sake of licensing? Should it be licensed in a way that would damage rather than enhance the profession? Should it be licensed just for the sake of collecting licensure fees?
It is unclear to me if I would be able to continue my work under this proposed licensure system. Many of the details are left vague, to be determined by a few licensure board appointees. I would probably have to stop teaching. Depending on the details, the proposed system could put me out of business. In the best case scenario, I would have to significantly raise my fees, making my services inaccessible to many clients.
I ask you to oppose S191/H282. Please don’t make my wonderful, difficult job even more difficult. More importantly, please don’t take our services away from clients and students. Doing so would be the exact opposite of consumer protection.
Thank you for your consideration of my testimony.