Where IMpact Stands

AMTA has been central to national conversations surrounding the Interstate Massage Compact (IMpact), an initiative aimed at making it easier for massage therapists to practice across state lines. First introduced to the profession in 2020, with guidance from the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the Council of State Governments (CSG), IMpact was intended to improve professional mobility, particularly for military families, spouses, and personnel.

While five states have enacted the legislation, efforts in many others have faced significant setbacks, with bills failing, stalling, or encountering strong opposition from stakeholders. Additionally, a number of states do not meet IMpact’s baseline eligibility requirements, further limiting its reach and effectiveness across the broader profession.

States Where IMpact has Passed (as of April 2025)

• Nevada
• Montana
• Virginia
• Arkansas
• Ohio (Pending final eligibility—Ohio must still pass a Continuing Education (CE) requirement.)

States Where IMpact has Stalled, Faced Legislative Challenges or Roadblocks

While a handful of states have passed IMpact, many others have seen efforts stall or fail. In many states, the bill either stalled in committee, failed outright, or was withdrawn due to stakeholder concerns. Here’s a look at why the IMpact did not advance in the following states:

• Florida – The bill failed to gain traction during the 2024 legislative session. Stakeholders cited a lack of outreach and unresolved questions about how the IMpact would align with Florida’s unique licensing and education standards.

• Washington – Introduced by a retired massage therapist-turned-legislator, the bill was later pulled due to concerns over restrictive eligibility requirements and the potential to exclude experienced practitioners. The sponsor reportedly withdrew support after hearing from constituents who felt the IMpact would create more barriers than opportunities.
  
  
• Georgia – After failing in 2024, the bill was reintroduced in 2025 but has since stalled in the Senate. Opposition from local associations and questions about CE enforcement and therapist oversight contributed to the delay.
  
  
• Illinois – The 2025 bill has seen little movement, with legislators citing uncertainty around enforcement mechanisms and pushback from massage therapists worried about unequal standards. It remains in the Assignments Committee without a clear path forward.
  
  
• New York – The state has a long history of caution toward entering professional compacts, largely due to its unique licensure requirements, including a state-specific exam. Legislative momentum has been minimal, and the bill has not advanced past early introduction stages.
  
  
• Nebraska – LB 280 was killed in committee in 2024 following strong opposition from local massage therapy educators and practitioners, who raised concerns about the IMpact’s compatibility with Nebraska’s licensing laws and lack of public input.
  
  
• Maine – The bill died in committee shortly after introduction. Legislators reported hearing early and vocal opposition from the massage therapy community, which questioned the IMpact’s benefit to the state’s relatively small therapist population.
  
  
• Hawaii – Lawmakers expressed concern that the IMpact could allow non-resident practitioners to bypass local rules and compete with Hawaii-based therapists, raising fears about regulation consistency and community impact.
  
  
• North Carolina – The bill faced significant resistance due to concerns that the IMpact would override important state protections and credentialing processes.

Many States Are Not Eligible, Not Included: Limiting the IMpact’s Reach

Beyond legislation that did move forward in other states, many states simply do not meet IMpact’s baseline eligibility requirements. Massage therapists in states without licensure, continuing education (CE) requirements, or with differing exam standards, would be unable to benefit from the IMpact’s intended portability.

Collectively, these states account for approximately 40% of the nation’s massage therapy workforce, raising serious questions about the IMpact’s overall effectiveness and reach within the profession.

States without Licensure

• California
• Minnesota
• Wyoming
• Kansas
• Vermont

States Missing CE Requirements

• Maine
• Massachusetts
• Utah
• Hawaii
• Colorado

States with Unique Exam Requirements

• New York – Requires a unique state exam; history of avoiding compacts
• Texas – Requires two exams (national and state)

AMTA Continues to Advocate for a More Inclusive IMpact

Since 2020, AMTA has collaborated with key stakeholders, participating in the early development discussions of the IMpact led by the Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards (FSMTB) and the Council of State Governments (CSG). However, as the IMpact language evolved, significant concerns emerged, leading to the AMTA Board of Director’s decision to ultimately oppose it. In short, the IMpact as currently written, restricts thousands of qualified, long-practicing massage therapists across the country from participating in it.

Read more about AMTA’s full position on the IMpact and our goals on working with stakeholders to move towards more inclusive legislation that would benefit massage therapists across the profession.