Michigan House Bill HB4116

Michigan 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/15/23
• Refer: 2/15/23

Caption

Health occupations: health professionals; attending health care professional; define Creates new act.

Impact

The primary impact of HB4116 relates to the regulatory framework governing health care professions in Michigan. By formally defining who qualifies as an attending health care professional, the bill could alter how various legal and health care provisions apply to massage therapists. This may lead to changes in licensing, insurance, and liability practices, potentially simplifying or complicating the current landscape for practitioners and their clients. The bill's passage could also set a precedent influencing how other non-medical health professions are categorized within the state's legal structure.

Summary

House Bill 4116 proposes to exclude massage therapists from being classified as 'attending health care professionals' under section 28 of Article I of the Michigan state constitution. The bill reinforces that the definition of professionals authorized to provide health care does not extend to massage therapists, which is a significant legal distinction that could affect their practice and regulations surrounding their profession. This creates a clear delineation between massage therapy and other recognized health care services, emphasizing that massage therapists do not fall under the same category as medically licensed practitioners when it comes to certain legal interpretations in Michigan law.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding HB4116 stem from concerns raised by various stakeholders in the health care community. Critics argue that excluding massage therapists from this classification could undermine the recognition of their practice as a legitimate form of health care, putting their services at risk of being undervalued. Proponents of the bill may assert that this classification is essential in order to maintain standards and clarity within the health care sector. The implications for insurance coverage and patient access to therapeutic services may further fuel debates about the necessity and reasoning behind such a legislative change.