This bill was heard June 2, 2025, by the Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure, but it has not yet been sent to study. This means that there is still time to send in written testimony and email the Committee members!

Under this licensing bill, virtually anyone playing music for another person, even to soothe them, would be practicing music therapy. Under the bill, no one without a license can “practice music therapy.” The bill states that:

Music therapy interventions may include: (i) music improvisation; (ii) receptive music listening; (iii) songwriting; (iv) lyric discussion; (v) music and imagery; (vi) singing; (vii) music performance; (viii) learning through music; (ix) music combined with other arts; (x) music-assisted relaxation; (xi) music- based patient education; (xii) electronic music technology; (xiii) adapted music intervention; and
(xiv) movement to music.

There is no constitutional basis for licensing music therapy! A state can license an occupation to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Music therapy does not pose an imminent risk of harm to the public and therefore should not be licensed.   

This bill, if it became law, would place music therapy under a Board, which would decide who was “determined to be qualified as music therapists.” The Board would create rules and regulations, establish standards and ethical conduct, set continuing education standards, and more. Those who did not fit into the licensing framework would be forced out of using music as a part of their practice. It would impose unnecessary regulatory burdens and adversely impact healers and consumers. It would increase fees and therefore how much  the consumer would pay.  Licensing creates monopolies for those with a license. This sort of over broad and unnecessary licensing hurts our economy, workers, small businesses, and consumers.

Under this restrictive licensing bill, practices and the use of certain titles would be prohibited and banned from the public domain. Under H3939, these restricted titles include “music therapist, licensed professional music therapist or any similar title.” Certainly it would be difficult for a person (or unlicensed healing practitioner!) to use any title with music in it. These titles should not be taken out of the public domain and should not be restricted to an exclusive group of people.

Massachusetts needs a broad Safe Harbor law similar to laws in eleven other states that will protect complementary and alternative practitioners in a more feasible and practical manner, that is good for both consumers and practitioners, and that gives clear guidance to government. Massachusetts now has two Safe Harbor bills currently in the legislature: Massachusetts H. 2504 / S.1481, An Act providing for consumer access to and the right to practice complementary and alternative health care services, and have been sent to the Joint Public Health Committee. 

Take Action Steps:

CLICK HERE NOW TO EMAIL the committee members to OPPOSE MA H.3939, a restrictive licensing bill, because it hurts alternative healing practitioners and the clients they serve. We have a letter ready for you to send. We recommend personalizing it if you can.

TO SUBMIT WRITTEN TESTIMONY– The subject line of your email should be: “Testimony in Opposition to H.3939, An Act relative to music therapy licensure”. Please submit your written testimony via email to: jointcmte-consumerprotection@malegislature.gov

If you have any questions, you may email Marissa Dakin (Marissa.Dakin@mahouse.gov) or Tom Mahoney (Thomas.Mahoney@masenate.gov)