1958 – American Association of Masseurs Masseuses (AAMM) becomes American Massage and Therapy Association (AM&TA)
1983 – AMTA removes the & to become AMTA
“The “&” was dropped in 1983, reinforcing the identity of the unified profession as massage therapy. The term therapy was defined generally as promoting good health and encompassed the whole range of applications envisioned by Ling over a century earlier. The title massage therapist was readily understood by the general public, and helped give the field legitimacy as a health profession. ” Patricia Benjamin. Brush up on the history of the massage profession.”
1983 : M. Hungerford, the National Education Director of AMTA at the time, initiated the Membership Entrance Exam (MEE) as a means for people to test into the AMTA. Membership into AMTA required massage therapists to have graduated from an AMTA approved school. At the time there were only 15 approved schools in the US making it difficult to attend. The MME was created to test incoming members who were unable to attend an AMTA approved school. The MEE was not a psychometrically valid exam. It required a hands on test which was difficult to administer as testing was subjective. (From May 1993 Action Item: Examination of the AMTA Membership Entrance Exam submitted by: Kate Jeffery).
1989: The intentions of the exam changed from being an AMTA entrance exam to a national exam. (From May 1993 Action Item: Examination of the AMTA Membership Entrance Exam submitted by: Kate Jeffery).
April 1989: Sixty massage therapists signed and sent a joint initiative to AMTA to halt the certification process until more information could be gathered on its necessity for the profession; this request was rejected by AMTA. AMTA Hands On. Winter 1989
1988: The American Massage Therapy Association (AMTA) officially authorized and funded the National Certification Program for Massage Therapists. AMTA loaned $150,000 to create the National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage & Bodywork (NCBTMB) and a steering committee, with the money paid back by the end of 1996. At this time, there was no research conducted to determine if such a certification was needed for the profession. Hands On Fall 1989
December 1989: A Steering Committee was appointed for the National Certification Program for Massage Therapists by the AMTA National Board of Directors. Over 2,000 “Update” report cards, representing a 23% response, were returned by December 5, 1989, regarding interest in certification. . AMTA Hands On. Winter 1989
1989: AMTA creates the Commission for Massage Therapy Accreditation (COMTA)
1990: AMTA created the National Certification Board for Massage and Bodywork (NCBTMB)
January 1990: AMTA voted to have members remove the word “certified” from their membership certificates, replacing it with “this is to verify that (Name) is an active member…”. Hands On. 1990
December 1990: “A National Study of the Profession of Massage Therapy/Bodywork” (the Job Analysis Report) was conducted by Knapp and Associates for the Council of National Certification Program for Massage Therapists. This report aimed to establish a valid national credential, enhance professional respect, and provide self-regulatory guidance.
1990 – Massage Therapy Foundation created by AMTA to further research in the massage profession.
1993: AMTA proposes that they drop the MEE and phase it out by Dec 1994. They sent a survey to 120 members in New Hampshire and 18 people responded. (From May 1993 Action Item: Examination of the AMTA Membership Entrance Exam submitted by: Kate Jeffery).
November 1994: The NCBTMB incorporated separately from the AMTA.
April 1995 The Washington State legislature adopted the every category of provider mandate in RCW 48.43.045. The statute was to be effective January 1, 1996. This set the precedent that massage could be covered by health insurance. It was created because the WA Insurance Commissioner at the time, Deborah Senn made it so. She had an assistant, Lori Belinski now Lori Grassi who was a massage therapist. See the full history of integration and the timeline of events ending in a Supreme Court Decision making it so.
End of 1996: The initial $150,000 loan from AMTA to create the NCBTMB was fully paid back.
August 1999: Representatives from various state massage regulatory agencies met to establish the National Alliance of State Massage Therapy Boards (NASMTB).
2004 -COMTA officially separated from AMTA
March 21, 2006: The American Massage Therapy Association (AMTA) declared the National Certification Exam of Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork (NCBTMB) legally defensible after another organization (FSMTB) questioned its constitutionality.
January 2007, the American Massage Therapy Association (AMTA) began hosting a series of four meetings to explore the possibility of the massage therapy profession’s leadership organizations working together to develop consensus around definitional and scope issues – what is typically called the Body of Knowledge (BOK) for a profession. This group, initially started by AMTA, was comprised of over a dozen entities that included bodies from the accreditation, certification, education, regulatory, advocacy and research arenas. In July of 2008, Associated Bodywork & Massage Professionals (ABMP) joined the group along with several organizations representing accreditation and other bodywork, movement and somatic disciplines. Today, key stakeholder organizations have chosen to move forward. The others elected to not participate in subsequent meetings. The groups that elected to discontinue participation have been kept apprised of the group’s progress and will have further opportunity for input at a later time.
The continuing participant organizations transitioned into an autonomous Massage Therapy Body of Knowledge Stewardship group comprised of representatives from each of the following six organizations: American Massage Therapy Association (AMTA), AMTA-Council of Schools, Associated Bodywork & Massage Professionals (ABMP), Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards (FSMTB), Massage Therapy Foundation (MTF) and National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork (NCBTMB).”
2008 – Massage Therapy Body of Knowledge created which is a compendium of what an individual must know and/or be able to do, to successfully work in a specific field – massage therapy. Welcome to the Massage Therapy Body of Knowledge Project. This effort has been guided under the direction of the Massage Therapy Body of Knowledge (MTBOK) Stewards. The MTBOK Stewards consist of representatives from the American Massage Therapy Association, AMTA-Council of Schools, Associated Bodywork & Massage Professionals, Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards, Massage Therapy Foundation, and National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork.
See also: Developing, Maintaining, and Using a Body of Knowledge for the Massage Therapy Profession. A Body of Knowledge needs to be updated regularly.
June 30, 2009: News broke that the NCBTMB was launching a membership organization called the USA Massage Resource Association (USAMRA) to “strengthen the value of NCBTMB” by offering insurance and other benefits, automatically including its 91,000 certificants. They were also offering discounts on pizza and oil change services.
July 2009: The American Massage Therapy Association (AMTA) expressed “disappointment” in the NCBTMB’s decision to create a membership organization, stating it was not in the profession’s best interest and would erode the value of certification. The NCBTMB clarified that the news of USAMRA was “prematurely disclosed” and changed the name to USA Massage Resource Alliance (usaMRA).
Jan 2009 -AMTA – Announced view that Massage & Bodywork Licensing Exam (MBLEx), developed by the Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards (FSMTB), is the best choice for a licensing exam that can lead to portability of massage practice… NOT the exam from the company they started and recommended, NCBTMB.
2010 : Section 2706 of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 promises “non-discrimination in health care.” The provision was lobbied by the American Chiropractic Association and the Integrated Healthcare Policy Consortium (IHPC) and championed by U.S. Senators Tom Harkin and Barbara Mikulski, MD. The intention was to honor citizen choice by broadening access to non-MD providers. Of greatest interest to Harkin and the duo lobbying organizations are those classified as licensed complementary and alternative medicine practitioners. AMTA fails to act.
2014 -Entry Level Analysis Project recommends minimum required competencies for entry level massage therapists. www.elapmasssage.org The Entry-Level Analysis Project (ELAP) is a research project initiated by the Coalition of National Massage Therapy Organizations in March 2012. The project goals were to define knowledge and skill components of entry-level education and recommend the minimum number of hours schools should teach to prepare graduates for safe and competent practice in the massage profession. Completed in December of 2013. AMTA
Except now AMTA says this about the ELAP:
“While AMTA continues to support the general content of the ELAP report, we have never endorsed or supported the 625-hour recommendation. As FSMTB is aware, having also participated in ELAP, the original findings recommended well over 625 hours of massage therapy education. AMTA strongly objected to this number, as it disregarded the evidence-based findings, which conflicts with our core values and even in the words of the ELAP work group, “We encourage interested parties to focus less upon the total hours and more on recommended subject matter and subtopics.” We do not believe that there is an empirical basis for the 625-hour threshold.” AMTA OK Website article.
2013: AMTA eliminated chapter fees thereby reducing the abilities of the chapters to work autonomously.
June 5 2014 : AMTA signs letter from IHPC with other people/organizations on the 2706 issue.
Section 2706 was one of the strongest federal footholds massage therapy ever had for insurance integration — and it was underutilized.
It could have been:
- A coordinated national credentialing campaign
- A state insurance commissioner pressure strategy
- A data collection enforcement effort
- A stepping stone toward Medicare inclusion
Instead, it became largely dormant.
October 3, 2014, NCBTMB and FSMTB signed a collaborative agreement. This agreement stated that, as of November 1, 2014, NCBTMB would no longer offer its NCETM and NCETMB licensure exams to the public. Moving forward, NCBTMB supports FSMTB’s MBLEx as the country’s entry level licensure examination.
2017: AMTA Fact Sheet reports: “Massage therapists and consumers favor the integration of massage into health care.
- Nearly two-thirds of adult Americans (64 percent) would like to see their insurance cover massage therapy.4
- The vast majority of massage therapists (97 percent) believe massage therapy should be considered part of the health care field.”
2018: The most profound change occurred between 2017 and 2018, when the House of Delegates was replaced by the Assembly of Delegates (AOD). Unlike the HOD, which had the power to pass binding resolutions, the AOD was relegated to an advisory role. Delegates now “discuss and debate” position statements, but the final decision-making power rests entirely with the National Board of Directors.
| Governance Body | Role and Authority | Member Influence Level |
| House of Delegates (Pre-2017) | Decision-making body; passed resolutions affecting the association. | High: Direct voting on national policy. |
| Assembly of Delegates (Post-2018) | Advisory body; forwards discussion notes to the Board. | Low: Advisory only; final authority with the Board. |
| National Board of Directors | Exercises all powers; manages financial and strategic direction. | Concentrated: Power shifted from delegates to the Board. |
This restructuring mirrors a common evolution in non-profit management, where organizations transition from a “volunteer-led” model to a “staff-run” model. While this transition is often framed as a necessity for organizational growth, it frequently results in the marginalization of the founding volunteer base, as critical choices about “control, operations, money, and mission impact” are transferred to professional executives.
In the decade between 2012 and 2024, the AMTA’s revenue grew from $13.3 million to $22.7 million. This growth has been driven largely by program services, with membership dues accounting for over $18 million of total revenue in 2024.
| Fiscal Year | Total Revenue | Total Assets | Net Assets/Fund Balances |
| 2012 | $13,300,000 | (Not available) | (Not available) |
| 2016 | (Not available) | $22,500,000 | (Not available) |
| 2023 | $20,900,000 | (Not available) | (Not available) |
| 2024 | $22,691,933 | $46,741,102 | $29,736,812 |
While the organization is in sound financial health, the disparity between member income and executive compensation has become a point of contention. The median income for a massage therapist in the U.S. remains relatively modest, yet AMTA’s top leadership receives compensation packages that rival those of executives in much larger medical associations.
Analysis of Executive Compensation
In 2024, the total compensation for key officers and directors reached $1,648,225, accounting for 7.3% of the organization’s total expenses. William Brown, the Executive Director until May 2023, received compensation totaling nearly $450,000. Other high-level executives, including the CEO and General Counsel, receive salaries in the $300,000+ range.
| Name / Position | Base Salary | Other Compensation | Total (approx.) |
| William Brown (Executive Director) | $436,249 | $13,656 | $449,905 |
| Lisa Stegink (CEO & General Counsel) | $323,938 | $39,185 | $363,123 |
| Jeffery Flom (CEO) | $284,986 | $40,609 | $325,595 |
| Department Directors (Avg.) | $150,000+ | (Varies) | $150,000 – $191,000 |
In contrast to these executive salaries, the AMTA reported giving $598,997 in grants and scholarships in 2024. This amount, which supports the Massage Therapy Foundation and student scholarships, is notably lower than the combined compensation of the top three executives. Critics argue that a member-driven organization would prioritize more direct reinvestment into the profession rather than sustaining a high-cost administrative elite.
The shift to a staff-driven model has also affected the quality of member benefits, particularly liability insurance. ABMP membership includes individual coverage of $2 million per incident and $6 million per year for each therapist.1 In contrast, the AMTA’s insurance model utilizes a “shared member aggregate” or master limit, which means that the total coverage is shared among all members.1 Critics argue that a truly member-driven organization would prioritize the individual security of its practitioners over the cost-savings of a shared corporate policy.1
2020 – The Interstate Massage Compact was created after a few years of research and input from a technical advisory group along with funding from the DOD and support from CSG and managed by the Federation of Massage State boards.
2020-2026
Aug. 2024 The AOD submitted their discussion on creating a stronger mentorship program to the National Board.
January 1, 2026
Five states have enacted the original compact.
January 14, 2026
National Center for Interstate Compacts announces revised compact language after collaborating with AMTA.
FSMTB declines to participate in revision discussions.
2026 – Revised Compact Released
Key changes supported in revision:
- Allows therapists with two years’ experience to qualify even if under 625 hours
- Expands recognition of earlier national exams
- Modifies governance language regarding commission authority
Result:
The compact now has two versions circulating — original enacted language and revised model language — requiring previously enacted states to amend statutes to align with revisions. Legislators are left confused and are being misinformed of the details.
Full details of the event are here in a Google Doc.
03/02/2026 – Still no progress from National on the status of their mentorship program.
03/2025 –
Their election report shows that “Tellers Report. Total Number of Eligible Professional Member Voters – 93,273
Total Number of Voters – 3,290
Percentage of Eligible Voters Participating – 3.5%
Percentage of Voters Approving the Board Slate – 94.5%”
Taken together, these numbers often point to a structure where:
- Governance is centralized
- Leadership is internally selected
- The majority of members are passive participants
Many professional associations operate this way. It is not unusual. But it does raise questions about whether the organization is functioning as a member-driven professional body or more as an administrative organization that provides services.