House Bill 5947 would amend Michigan’s Public Health Code provisions governing massage therapy licensure. The bill updates definitions related to massage therapy and clarifies that certain bodywork and movement-based practices—such as Feldenkrais, the Trager approach, polarity therapy, Reiki, shiatsu, reflexology, and structural integration—do not require a massage therapy license so long as they are not represented as massage therapy. It also refines the statutory definition of massage therapy to emphasize structured touch, pressure, movement, and holding intended to enhance health and well-being, while excluding medical diagnosis, physical therapy, joint manipulation, electrical stimulation, ultrasound, and prescribing medicines.
The bill also changes licensure requirements and fee provisions. It sets a 3-year license cycle, revises application and license fees, and allows applicants to qualify through approved massage education programs, substantially equivalent out-of-state programs, or a 625-hour apprenticeship. It further recognizes distance education as a form of classroom instruction under specified conditions and requires qualified instructors for classroom and online components. The bill adds a new section authorizing massage therapists to operate apprenticeship programs, subject to department approval, supervision, recordkeeping, limits on hours and apprentice numbers, and rules to be promulgated by the department.
In practical terms, the bill would affect the licensing standards administered by the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs and the Board of Massage Therapy, as well as massage schools, apprenticeship operators, and applicants for licensure. It would create a formal apprenticeship pathway, establish an apprenticeship permit process, and allow the department to deny, suspend, or revoke permits for violations. The bill also makes clear that people licensed under other laws, students, apprentices, family members, and self-care activities are not barred from performing massage-like services when they are not holding themselves out as licensed massage therapists.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill text is regulatory and permissive rather than punitive: it appears designed to modernize training pathways, recognize alternative education formats, and clarify which complementary and energy-based practices fall outside massage licensure. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of support or opposition in the available context. The main points of potential contention are likely to be the expanded apprenticeship model, the inclusion of distance education, and the explicit exemptions for alternative modalities such as Reiki and polarity therapy, which could raise concerns about scope-of-practice boundaries and consumer protection.
The bill would amend multiple sections of Michigan’s Public Health Code, specifically the massage therapy licensing provisions in part 179A. It would revise fee schedules, update statutory definitions, expand acceptable education and training pathways, and add a new section authorizing and regulating massage therapy apprenticeship programs. The bill would also require the department to adopt implementing rules and would affect applicants, licensed massage therapists, schools, apprenticeship sponsors, and the state licensing board.
No committee testimony or vote history is available in the provided context, so there is no recorded public debate to measure. Based on the text alone, the bill appears generally supportive of expanding access to licensure and clarifying exemptions for complementary and alternative practices, while maintaining state oversight through licensing, supervision, and permit rules.
The most likely areas of disagreement are the bill’s treatment of alternative and energy-based practices, the use of apprenticeships as a licensure pathway, and the acceptance of distance education for massage training. Supporters would likely view these changes as increasing flexibility and access to the profession, while critics may question whether the new pathways provide sufficient training, oversight, and consumer protection. The bill also distinguishes between massage therapy and other bodywork modalities, which could be contentious for practitioners whose services overlap with licensed massage work.