An Act To Amend Title 24 Of The Delaware Code Relating To The Interstate Massage Compact.
SB 218 adopts the Interstate Massage Compact in Delaware, creating a multistate licensing framework for massage therapists. The compact is intended to make it easier for licensed massage therapists to practice across state lines while preserving each state’s authority to regulate massage therapy within its borders. It establishes a pathway for a “multistate license” that would authorize practice in all member states, provided the applicant holds an active home-state license and meets compact eligibility standards.
To qualify for a multistate license, an applicant must hold an unrestricted single-state license in their home state, complete at least 625 hours of massage therapy education or an approved equivalent, pass a national licensing exam or equivalent, submit to a background check, and meet criminal-history and disciplinary-history restrictions. The compact also requires continuing competence for renewal and creates a shared data system so member states can exchange licensure, investigative, and adverse-action information. It further creates an Interstate Massage Compact Commission to administer the compact, adopt rules, manage reporting, and coordinate enforcement among member states.
The bill would amend Title 24 of the Delaware Code by adding a new subchapter governing the compact, and it would supersede conflicting state laws only to the extent of conflict. Delaware would retain authority over its own massage therapy laws, scope-of-practice rules, and disciplinary actions, but would also be required to recognize valid multistate licenses from other member states once the compact is in effect. The act becomes effective only after the compact has been adopted by at least seven states and the Secretary of State publishes notice of that fact.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is favorable and policy-oriented, emphasizing public access, therapist mobility, public safety, and fraud prevention. The synopsis highlights benefits for military members and spouses, and the compact is framed as a cooperative regulatory tool rather than a deregulatory measure. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no recorded debate or formal legislative opposition in the materials supplied.
The main points of potential contention are the compact’s broad interstate regulatory structure and the extent to which it centralizes rulemaking and information-sharing through the Commission. Possible concerns include background-check requirements, criminal disqualification standards, data sharing, the Commission’s authority to adopt rules with the force of law, and the effect of remote-state discipline on a licensee’s ability to practice in all member states. These issues are balanced in the bill by language preserving state enforcement authority and allowing states to continue regulating single-state licenses.
SB 218 would add a new interstate compact subchapter to Title 24 governing massage therapy licensure and regulation. It would require Delaware, as a member state, to participate in a multistate licensing system, share disciplinary and investigative information, recognize multistate licenses issued by other member states, and conform to compact rules and data-reporting obligations. Conflicting state laws would be superseded only to the extent they are inconsistent with the compact, while Delaware would retain authority over its own massage therapy scope-of-practice and discipline of single-state licenses.
The bill appears generally supportive and pro-compact in tone. Its stated goals are to improve mobility for licensed massage therapists, expand public access to services, strengthen public safety, and help military families. Because no committee transcript or vote history was provided, there is no documented floor or committee opposition in the supplied materials, but the compact’s regulatory reach suggests that any concerns would likely focus on state autonomy, enforcement, and data-sharing rather than the overall purpose of the bill.
The most likely areas of contention are the compact’s interstate enforcement structure and the Commission’s authority. Potential concerns include whether Delaware should cede any rulemaking or disciplinary coordination to a multistate body, how broadly criminal and disciplinary disqualifications should apply, and whether the data system and investigative sharing adequately protect privacy and due process. Another possible issue is the effect of one state’s adverse action on a licensee’s ability to practice in all member states, although the bill preserves each state’s authority to enforce its own laws and discipline practitioners within its borders.