Please note that information within this submission has been redacted because of privacy and/or copyright issues
Private Health Insurance Branch,
Medical Benefits Division,
Deprtment of Health and Ageing.
AUTHOR’S BACKGROUND.
I, Bernard Scully, have been actively associated with remedial massage since 1985. My qualifications include:
Diploma of remedial massage,
Diploma of mechanical engineering, and
Bachelor of Commerce ( Legal Studies).
I am a practicing massage therapist, and tutor of human anatomy, having technical articles on musculo-skeletal injuries published in the USA and the UK.
I was the founder and director of the Convocation of Massage Therapists in NSW, until it ceased trading in 2000. This professional association was restricted to therapists whose technique was referred to as Massage Science - and membership was obtained by invitation only.
THEME OF SUBMISSION.
In order to act as a remedial therapist in NSW, a practitioner is compelled to be a member of an approved professional association; there is no legislation to support this compulsion, but such membership is a pre-requisite for the securement of professional insurance, and health fund recognition.
Approximately twenty years ago, there were, perhaps, only two major modes of massage – relaxation massage, and remedial massage. Broadly speaking, the first required a good sense of touch, while the second required an extensive knowledge of musculo-skeletal structure as well.
To serve as an example of this dichotomy, when the federal government planned the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax, there was a basic intention to exempt medical services – this included, inter-alia, physiotherapy treatments, (which occasionally involved manual massage.)
I submitted at the time, that I, and the members of my association, dealt only in the field of remedial, or corrective, science-based massage and, while it was not compulsory to do so, clients frequently sought treatment in possession of a GP’s letter of referral. Consequently, I argued, our services were eligible to be classified as a medical-type service.
My proposal was accepted, and GST exemption was granted – but to a select number of qualified practitioners who performed corrective massage, such as those who were members of the Convocation of Massage Therapists.
As an adjunct, since Health Insurance Funds were, at that time, considering the acceptance of massage services, but were having difficulty determining which of the many classifications to select, I offered the GST-type category, which they readily accepted.
If my memory serves me correctly, the major funds – in those days HCF, MBF, and NIB, limited their initial approval to “ suitably qualified therapists, who were members of an approved professional association, such as the Convocation of Massage Therapists.”
This decision provided the incentive for professional associations – there were, perhaps, more than twenty – to compete for Health Fund recognition, and for membership numbers; an association with the greater number of members was considered more powerful, more influentual and therefore more attractive, than an association with only, say a few hundred members.
This is not a valid assumption, but the market forces prevailed; mergers and takeovers occurred, and today we see only three or four associations of practitioners of so-called natural therapies, including massage, including corrective massage.
Here we have reached the theme of my submission; in order to obtain the hefty membership numbers that provide, among other things, political and commercial influence, these associations have admitted to membership almost any applicant who possesses a qualification that involves 2000 hours of class-room attendance. The details of the syllabus are almost irrelevant, as long as the duration is sufficient. While no-one in Australia can refer to themselves as a physiotherapist (unless he or she has suitable qualifications), almost anyone can call themselves a massage therapist – and in a similar manner, can refer to their technique as massage, although such a technique might be totally devoid of science, or logic, or common sense.
RECOMMENDATION.
While I haven’t hesitated to criticize the role of professional associations, (of which I am a member,) I do balk at recommending a solution to the problem. The health insurance funds are at liberty to restrict rebates to those treatments that are science –based, but how such a determination is to be made, I am unable to say.
Nervertheless, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my views.
Bernard Scully,
“Redacted”
26th November, 2012.