Urge CSG to Rescind the Revised Compact Language
- Kirby Clark, MMT
- 4 days ago
- 6 min read
Updated: 3 days ago
The Council of State Governments (CSG) recently released a revised version of the Interstate Massage Compact (IMpact). As someone deeply invested in the success, integrity, and long-term stability of this compact, I believe these revisions should be rescinded—and that any new language should not be introduced until no earlier than 2027.
Below, I want to explain why many practitioners, educators, and advocates are urging CSG to reconsider—and why this matters to every massage therapist in the United States.
This is not a small concern or an abstract policy question. The revised language was developed in a rushed, opaque manner, supported by an unrepresentative sampling of the profession, and introduced at a pivotal moment when the original IMpact was beginning to show strong legislative momentum.
The profession deserves better: better transparency, better data, and better stewardship of the compact process.
1. The Original IMpact Was Succeeding—Revisions Now Undermine That Momentum
The IMpact language was published in early 2023. Because state legislatures cannot begin their work until compact language exists, 2023 functioned as a ramp-up year—yet even then, one state enacted the compact.
The correct window for evaluating IMpact’s early success is 2024–2025, not 2022–2025.
Within that two-year window:
2024 saw a second enactment, even while AMTA was actively engaged in opposing the compact.
2025 saw three more states—Nevada, Arkansas, and Montana—join, despite AMTA disengaging and shifting to “neutral” only after significant practitioner pushback.
By the end of 2025:
Five states enacted,
Three more states had pending legislation, and
Nine additional states were drafting 2026 bills.
And keep in mind: not every state legislature meets annually (including Arkansas). Despite that, IMpact’s adoption rate was strong and accelerating.
To release competing compact language—with no time for the original to mature, stabilize, or expand—is premature at best and harmful at worst.
2. The Revised Language Was Produced in an Unusually Fast, Non-Transparent Process
According to AMTA’s own published timeline, the revised language was developed between August and November—just three months. That’s a fraction of the time used to draft the original compact.
I want to be clear: AMTA did not write the revised language.However, the timing and context make it equally clear that the revisions were pursued largely in response to AMTA’s inconsistent stance since 2023: shifting from support, to opposition, to neutrality, and often sowing confusion for lawmakers and practitioners along the way.
The revision process did not mirror the transparency or broad consultation that characterized the development of the original compact. The feedback informing these changes came primarily from:
A survey sent only to AMTA’s own membership
A membership base representing, at best, one-third of the profession
An admitted total of only 500 responses (as shared in testimony in Georgia)
Five. Hundred. Responses.For a national compact affecting an entire health profession.
No matter how one feels about IMpact, that is nowhere near the representative, profession-wide input required to justify rewriting an interstate compact.
The massage therapy field deserves a real stakeholder process, not a rushed three-month pivot based on limited data.
3. The Revised Compact Creates Confusion and Disrespects States That Already Enacted IMpact
Five states—Nevada, Ohio, Arkansas, Virginia, and Montana—have already enacted the original IMpact. Practitioners, educators, advocates, and legislators in these states invested time, energy, and political capital to secure passage of the compact.
I can speak to this personally: in my state, I invested dozens of hours building relationships with fellow practitioners, working with legislators, and securing the Governor’s signature. And I was not alone. Grassroots support for the original IMpact was—and remains—strong, organized, and growing.
Now, states that already enacted IMpact are left wondering:
What happens to their legislation?
Will the original compact still launch?
Are they expected to repeal or rewrite their compact laws?
Which version will CSG support and implement?
Introducing a competing compact without answers is not just confusing—it is a disservice to the profession and to the states that took early, bold action.
4. What the Profession Should Ask of CSG
Given the concerns above, many of us across the field are urging CSG to take three responsible steps:
1. Rescind the revised compact language.
The process was too fast, too narrow, and too disconnected from the profession.
2. Reopen a transparent, profession-wide feedback process.
Every practitioner, educator, regulator, and stakeholder deserves a seat at the table—not just members of a single association.
3. Delay any new compact language until at least 2027.
This gives:
The original IMpact time to mature
Additional states time to adopt
FSMTB and AMTA time to collaborate on meaningful long-term solutions
The profession time to evaluate real-world implementation challenges
This is about responsible stewardship, not rejection of change. If the compact truly needs revision, it should come from a transparent, representative, and thoughtful process—not a rushed, reactionary one.
Where We Go From Here
This moment is pivotal for the future of the massage profession.
We have an opportunity to support a compact that increases mobility, strengthens regulation, enhances public protection, and unites our field. But we must insist that it be done with integrity, clarity, and genuine stakeholder involvement.
CSG has a long history of developing consensus-driven interstate compacts. I believe they can honor that history again—by rescinding the revised IMpact language, reopening the process, and giving our profession the transparent, accountable approach we deserve.
If you want to support these efforts, consider:
Emailing CSG using the public template
Sharing this blog post with peers and state leaders
Encouraging your professional networks to advocate for a transparent process
The future of IMpact—and the future of license mobility in our profession—depends on the strength of our collective voice.
Let’s use it.
Public Email Template:
Send emails to:
Dear CSG Revised Massage Compact Team,
I am writing as a supporter of the original Interstate Massage Compact (IMpact) to respectfully urge the Council of State Governments (CSG) to rescind the recently released revised compact language and to delay any introduction of alternative language immediately.
My concerns center on three key issues: the lack of transparency in the revision process, the unrepresentative nature of the stakeholder feedback used to justify changes, and the disruption these revisions cause to the successful enactment trajectory of the original compact.
1. The Original IMpact Has Demonstrated Strong, Healthy Progress
The original IMpact language was first available to states in January 2023- after many states had begun or passed bill drafting deadlines. Because legislative groundwork cannot begin before the language is public, 2023 was effectively a ramp-up year—yet one state—Nevada— still managed to join.
The appropriate window for evaluating enactment progress is 2024 & 2025. In this two-year period:
2024 added the second enacting state—Ohio—, even while AMTA publicly opposed the compact.
2025 added three more states—Virginia, Arkansas, and Montana—following a strategic shift from AMTA to a neutral stance only after practitioner led pushback.
In total, five states have enacted IMpact in three years, with three additional states pending and nine more drafting 2026 legislation. For a newly launched interstate compact—especially in a profession where not every legislature meets annually—this represents strong momentum and a high success rate.
Introducing competing language at this moment disrupts that progress and creates avoidable confusion.
2. The Revised Compact Language Was Developed in an Unusually Compressed and Non-Transparent Process
The revisions were produced within roughly three months (August–November)—significantly faster than the original compact drafting process and without comparable transparency or stakeholder engagement.
Although AMTA did not participate in writing the revised language, the shift toward revisions appeared to be a reaction to AMTA’s inconsistent positions, which have swung from support, to opposition, to neutrality. These changes in stance have been a major driver of practitioner and legislative confusion resulting in slowed enactment.
The survey data used to support revisions last month was limited to AMTA’s membership—optimistically one-third of U.S. practitioners—with only 500 responses, according to testimony during Georgia’s public December 5 Board of Massage meeting. This is not a representative sample of the profession and should not serve as the basis for altering national policy.
Simply put, the revised compact has not been properly vetted by the profession or industry stakeholders.
3. The Revised Language Disrespects the Work Already Completed by Enacting States
CSG has not yet provided a clear plan for how states that have enacted the original compact—Nevada, Ohio, Arkansas, Virginia, and Montana—are expected to navigate a competing version. Given political shifts and election turnover in state legislatures, there is no way CSG could guarantee the first five states to invest in Impact would be willing or able to join a competing compact with unnecessary revised language. Introducing alternative language sends a confusing message to lawmakers and regulators and undermines the significant grassroots advocacy that led to these enactments.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask CSG to:
Rescind the revised compact language.
Undertake a transparent, profession-wide feedback process before considering any substantive changes.
Delay any introduction of revised language to allow the original IMpact a fair opportunity to expand and stabilize.
This approach preserves the integrity of the compact process, respects the states that have already enacted IMpact, and ensures that any future revisions are grounded in broad, representative stakeholder input—not pressure from a single organization or a narrow pool of respondents.
Thank you for your consideration and for your continued leadership in supporting interstate workforce mobility through well-vetted, consensus-driven compacts.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Location]
[Optional: Your Professional Credentials or Affiliation]
[Optional: Your Contact Information]
Accompanying Vlog: https://youtu.be/nkBelnR4wNw?si=kBvVPnFMOhC9Omoo
Peace and Healing,
Kirby Clark Ellis, MTI, BCTMB
Comments