Open Letter to Massage & Bodywork Community

Re: REACH Program

The AFMTE has received many complaints and concerns about the REACH program and its implications. The AFMTE has identified concerns about the proposed REACH program and cannot support the initiative without further explanation from the FSMTB.  Please see our 11-30-14 press release regarding direct feedback regarding the continuing education approval process.

Our Past President, Pete Whitridge attended the recent FL-BOMT meeting in St. Augustine, FL. He put the AFMTE on record as being opposed to the program for the reasons below:

1. A variety of states do not support the REACH program.  
2. Addressing continued competence is a valid concern; however, the AFMTE sees FSMTB owning and operating courses that are granted CE credit as a conflict-of-interest.
3. The FSMTB has not made the curriculum outline/requirements available, so no one knows what content will be required. The AFMTE would need to see the curriculum before supporting it.
4. There is a concern that CE providers would be required to submit paperwork and pay fees to yet another organization for the privilege of providing required teaching hours. This creates an additional barrier for instructors. The AFMTE would like to be informed of the financial budget framework for supporting the REACH program.
5. AFMTE would like to see a plan from FSMTB that enables states to request contracts for licensure renewal materials—detailing how this would occur if there is not competitive bidding and open dialogue for CE providers.
6. The “Sponsor” system creates an additional layer of bureaucracy and paperwork. We acknowledge that the current process to vet CE courses and providers needs to be more robust. At the same time, we don’t want to see another level of approval bureaucracy created. The AFMTE strongly recommends that FSMTB partner with NCBTMB to utilize their well-established Approved CE Provider Program which will better serve the needs of FSMTB and their Member Boards. AFMTE believes consolidation of this key function will be beneficial to all who are involved with the provision, approval, regulation, and utilization of continuing education in our profession.

The AFMTE understands that some states do not have this type of system in place so there may be some need in other states but that does not mean that the FSTMB needs to create yet another Approved Provider program. We do feel that some of the possible classwork created by the FSMTB will be valuable for Disciplinary Actions and could be a requirement of the Board when using fines, reprimands, and remedial actions to discipline a licensee. It is during the regular licensure renewal process that the FSMTB cannot and should not be the sole (or major) provider of classwork of licensure renewal.

The AFMTE supports a cooperative model, grounded in a legal agreement and with collective oversight of the program, will also resolve the problem of Improper Delegation of Authority that state boards currently have with their use of NCBTMB’s Approved CE Provider Program. The AFMTE stands ready to work with FSMTB and NCBTMB to ensure that an effective, single-source CE approval program is created and administered that meets the needs of all stakeholder groups and garners the respect of the profession. If the FSMTB chooses, they could house the actual course records for each therapist (in a similar manner to CEBroker). The FSMTB is already developing a database that would include that function (MTLD).

Please let the FSMTB know your thoughts on this proposed action: info@fsmtb.org