Licensure for massage therapy and Asian bodywork therapy established, fees established, criminal penalties provided, and money appropriated.
HF362 establishes a new state licensing framework for massage therapy and Asian bodywork therapy, to be administered by the Minnesota Commissioner of Health. The bill creates protected titles, makes it unlawful beginning January 1, 2027, to practice or hold oneself out as a licensed massage therapist or licensed Asian bodywork therapist without a Minnesota license, and sets out detailed licensure pathways, including education, examination, background checks, insurance, and renewal requirements. It also creates a Massage Therapy Advisory Council to advise the commissioner on standards, ethics, applications, complaints, and discipline.
The bill defines the scope of practice for both professions and expressly excludes diagnosis, spinal manipulation, needle-based therapies, prescription exercise, traction, and other medical procedures. It includes exemptions for other licensed health professionals, certain complementary and alternative health care practitioners, out-of-state practitioners at events, students, federal employees, and unpaid family care. It also preempts municipal licensure and regulation of massage therapists and Asian bodywork therapists beginning July 1, 2027, while allowing cities and counties to continue licensing business establishments. Article 2 makes conforming changes to the complementary and alternative health care law so that licensed massage and Asian bodywork therapists are treated consistently under that chapter, including restrictions on suspended or revoked licensees practicing as unlicensed practitioners.
The bill would significantly change Minnesota law by moving massage therapy and Asian bodywork therapy from a largely local or unlicensed framework into a statewide professional licensing system. It would add new statutory provisions in chapter 148, amend chapter 146A, and establish fees, disciplinary authority, and criminal penalties for unlicensed practice or misuse of protected titles. The bill also appropriates money from the state government special revenue fund to the Department of Health to implement the new licensing program.
No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, amendments, or recorded support/opposition in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text itself, the policy appears aimed at professionalizing the field, standardizing training and oversight, and strengthening consumer protection through licensure, insurance, and disciplinary enforcement. The absence of discussion and voting history means the overall sentiment cannot be measured from legislative proceedings in the provided record.
The bill creates a new statewide licensing regime for massage therapists and Asian bodywork therapists in Minnesota, adding new statutes in chapter 148 and amending chapter 146A to align complementary and alternative health care law with the new licenses. It would require licensure for practice and use of protected titles, establish education, examination, insurance, renewal, discipline, and background-check requirements, and preempt municipal licensure and regulation of these professions starting July 1, 2027. It also authorizes the Department of Health to implement the program and appropriates special revenue funds for that purpose.
No committee testimony or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment to summarize from debate or roll calls. From the bill text, the measure appears generally regulatory and consumer-protection oriented, with a focus on professional standards, public safety, and clearer oversight of massage therapy and Asian bodywork therapy. The structure of the bill suggests an effort to formalize the professions rather than to expand or restrict the services themselves.
The main likely points of contention are the creation of a mandatory statewide licensing system, the preemption of local regulation, and the scope of exemptions for complementary and alternative health care practitioners and other providers. The bill also imposes detailed education, insurance, and background-check requirements, which could be viewed as raising barriers to entry, while supporters would likely see them as necessary consumer protections. Another possible issue is the treatment of practitioners with prior discipline or criminal history, since the bill sets categorical disqualifications but also allows the commissioner to create criteria for some offenses after a waiting period.