BILL ANALYSIS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Hearing Date:May 3, 2010 |Bill No:SB |
| |1043 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod, Chair
Bill No: SB 1043 Author:Calderon
As Amended: April 28, 2010 Fiscal: No
SUBJECT: Personal trainers.
SUMMARY: Defines the term personal trainer, establishes educational
and training requirements for personal trainers and prohibits
individuals from calling themselves personal trainers unless they meet
those requirements.
Existing law:
1) Provides for the licensure and regulation of physical therapists
and physical therapy assistants by the Physical Therapy Board of
California (PTBC) within the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA).
2) Defines the practice of physical therapy as the art and science of
physical or corrective rehabilitation or of physical or corrective
treatment of any bodily or mental condition of any person by the
use of the physical, chemical and other properties of heat, light,
water, electricity, sound, massage and active, passive and
resistive exercise, including physical therapy evaluation,
treatment planning, instruction and consultative services.
3) Provides for the licensure and regulation of occupational
therapists and occupational therapy assistants by the California
Board of Occupational Therapy (CBOT) within the Department of
Consumer Affairs.
4) Defines the practice of occupational therapy, in part, as the
therapeutic use of purposeful and meaningful goal-directed
activities which engage the individual's body and mind in
meaningful, organized and self-directed actions that maximize
independence, prevent or minimize disability and maintain health.
SB 1043
Page 2
This bill:
1)Prohibits an individual from representing him or herself as or using
the title of " personal trainer " unless one of the two following
requirements is met:
a) The person has a bachelor's degree in exercise science,
kinesiology, fitness science or another closely related field.
b) The person is certified by one of the following:
i) A national organization whose personal trainer
certification procedures are approved by the National
Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA).
ii) An organization accredited by either the Council for
Higher Education Accreditation or by the United States
Department of Education.
2)Specifies that "to hold himself or herself out as a, or use the
title of, personal trainer" means to state or advertise or put out
any sign, card or other device, or to represent to the public
through any print or electronic media, that he or she is a personal
trainer.
3)Defines "personal trainer" as an individual who has expertise in
developing and implementing physical fitness and training programs
for individuals and who provides those services for a fee to
individuals or through an organization (i.e. a fitness center) that
is compensated for making personal training services available.
4)Excludes the following from the personal trainer definition:
a) Individuals who provide training in a particular discipline
(i.e. yoga or pilates)
b) Individuals who provide training on a particular piece of
equipment or device such as a bicycle but does not include
proving advice or assistance on other aspects of physical fitness
and training such as body weight management, cardiovascular
fitness, endurance and overall muscle and strength development.
FISCAL EFFECT: None. This bill is keyed "nonfiscal" by
Legislative Counsel.
SB 1043
Page 3
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose. The Author is the Sponsor of this measure. According to
the Author, "there are no requirements for a personal trainer to
have a required degree or certification to hold themselves out as a
personal trainer. While many personal trainers have extensive
knowledge of the body and of fitness, many do not. In fact, some
so-called "personal trainers" have had little more than a weekend
training course, which is often conducted online."
2.Background.
a) Title Act vs. Practice Act Protection. It is important to
note the distinction between "title act" and certification or
registration regulation versus "practice act" and licensing
regulation. A practice act along with licensure confers the
exclusive right to practice a given profession on practitioners
who meet specified criteria related to education, experience, and
examination, and often is embodied in a statutory licensing act
(i.e., those who are not licensed cannot lawfully practice the
profession). A practice act is the highest and most restrictive
form of professional regulation, and is intended to avert severe
harm to the public health, safety or welfare that could be caused
by unlicensed practitioners.
A title act and a certification or registration program, on the
other hand, reserves the use of a particular professional (named)
designation to practitioners who have demonstrated specified
education, experience or other criteria such as certification by
another organization. A title act typically does not restrict
the practice of a profession or occupation and allows others to
practice within that profession; it merely differentiates between
practitioners who meet the specified criteria, and are authorized
by law to represent themselves accordingly, (usually by a
specified title) and those who do not. Some title acts also
include a state certification or registration program, or
reliance on a national certification or registration program, so
that those who use the specified title, and hold themselves out
to the public, have been certified or registered by a state
created or national entity as having met the specified
requirements. This entity may also regulate to some extent the
activities of the particular profession by setting standards for
the profession to follow, and to also provide oversight of the
practice of the profession by reporting unfair business practices
SB 1043
Page 4
or violations of the law and either denying or revoking a
certification or registration if necessary.
SB 1043 does not establish a licensing practice act but instead
provides for a title act. It restricts the use of the title
"personal trainer" to only those who have met certain education
or certification requirements. There is no state program created
to provide oversight of this profession, there is instead
reliance on whether the person meets the education requirements
or if they have been certified by a national organization which
has been approved by specified national agencies that approve
programs related to personal trainers.
b) Attempt to Provide Title Act Protection and Require
Certification for a Similar Profession. In 2002 and 2003, then
Assemblymember Lowenthal introduced legislation on behalf of the
California Athletic Trainers Association (CATA) proposing
licensure for athletic trainers. AB 2789 (2001-02 Session) was
amended to require a study of the issue before being held on the
Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file. AB 614 ,
(2003-04 Session) was held in Senate Business and Professions
Committee to allow the Joint Committee on Boards, Commissions and
Consumer Protection (Joint Committee) to examine whether athletic
trainers should be licensed as part of the "sunrise" process.
In compliance with the sunrise process, CATA completed and
submitted the extensive "sunrise questionnaire" in support of its
proposal for licensure. The athletic trainer sunrise proposal
was heard by the Joint Committee in January 2005. Following this
hearing, the Joint Committee voted unanimously, in April 2005, to
reject full licensure of athletic trainers, but suggested as part
of this recommendation that some form of recognition of athletic
trainers, such as title protection, may be appropriate.
In 2005, Senator Lowenthal introduced SB 1397 which would have
enacted the Athletic Trainers Certification Act, which prohibited
a person from representing him or herself as an athletic trainer
unless he or she is certified as an athletic trainer by an
athletic training organization. The bill would have regulated
the practice of athletic training by requiring all individuals
who use the title athletic trainer to meet specific education
standards, pass a certification exam, complete continuing
education and register with an athletic training organization.
The measure also made it an unfair business practice for a
registered athletic trainer to advertise or publicly represent he
or she as "state certified" or as "state registered" as an
SB 1043
Page 5
athletic trainer by the State of California. Governor
Schwarzenegger vetoed the measure claiming "there is no evidence
that the existing unregulated status of athletic trainers poses
any threat to public health and safety," and this measure would
place unnecessary regulatory burdens on the athletic training
profession.
In the sunrise questionnaire, CATA indicated that there are about
2,200 certified athletic trainers in California. Only those
athletic trainers who have been certified by the Omaha-based
Board of Certification (an affiliate of the National Athletic
Trainers Association) are permitted to use the terms certified
athletic trainer" or "athletic trainer, certified." The Board of
Certification certifies athletic trainers who have met the
qualifications and passed a national written examination. To sit
for the exam, applicants for certification as an athletic trainer
must have completed a bachelor degree program in an athletic
training educational program accredited by the Commission on
Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs. In 2005,
there were 12 accredited entry level athletic training education
programs in California, as well as one graduate level program and
an additional six entry-level programs in candidacy for
accreditation. Most of the accredited programs are in the
California State University system.
The majority of certified athletic trainers in California are
employed in school settings, including four-year colleges and
universities, community colleges, high schools, professional
sports teams, clinics, hospitals, industrial settings or private
health clubs employ the rest.
3.Attempts in Other States to Regulate Personal Trainers. A few other
states have or are considering legislation to regulate personal
trainers.
Louisiana currently licenses exercise science professionals through
its State Board of Medical Examiners. Applicants must have a
master's level education, test scores from the American College of
Sports Medicine and have completed a 300-hour internship in exercise
physiology under the supervision of a licensed exercise
physiologist.
Georgia Senate Resolution 1077 by Senators Jones and Seabaugh was
passed in 2005 to create the Senate Study Committee on the Licensure
of Personal Fitness Trainers to examine the state's growing and
unregulated personal fitness training industry and make
SB 1043
Page 6
recommendations it deems necessary or appropriate to provide
consumer protection.
Maryland House Bill 814 of 2008 by Delegate Costa would have
required the Board of Physicians to license and regulate the
practice of personal training, required all personal trainers to be
licensed by October 1, 2010, and specified age, education, and other
credential requirements required for licensure. The measure was
withdrawn.
New Jersey considered Senate Bill 2164 by Senator Sarlo in 2008 and
2009, which would require new personal trainers to receive 300 hours
of classroom instruction, including 50 hours of unpaid internship
and require existing trainers to enroll in 150 hours of classroom
instruction. The measure failed passage in their Legislature.
Massachusetts is considering Senate Bill 870 (Moore) which will
require professional licensure of personal trainers. Applicants are
required to have completed specified education and possess
certification from a nationally accredited organization, in addition
to an exam issued by that state's National Commission for Certifying
Agencies. The bill is currently on study order and not moving this
year.
Washington D.C.'s Department of Health recommended legislation to
require personal trainers to register with the Mayor and submit fees
biennially. Registered personal trainers would have been regulated
by the Board of Physical Therapy (Board) and would operate according
to a scope of practice delineated by the board. The issue did not
make it through the process to become law.
4.Policy Issue : Is There a Need to Regulate Personal Trainers? SB
374 (Calderon, 2009) is identical to this bill. The measure passed
out of this Committee in the form it is in currently, but was held
in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. At the time, the Author
cited examples of personal trainers lacking proper knowledge of
physiology which in turn contributes to consumer injury.
Personal trainers are typically employed in private settings where
consumers choose to utilize their services, as opposed to other
similar professionals who are more typically employed in schools or
medical settings. It is unclear whether requiring these
individuals to complete certain programs will enhance the quality
of their service or improve safety, particularly since there is not
a substantial body of data highlighting serious harm or injury
stemming from services offered by personal trainers in California.
SB 1043
Page 7
This measure also does not specify any recourse for a person who
violates the title act by calling themselves a "personal trainer"
without the specified degree or certification, such as stating it
as an unfair business practice. The Author may want to consider
what penalties should apply to violation of this title act.
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:
Support:
None on file as of April 28, 2010.
Opposition:
California Physical Therapy Association
Consultant:Sarah Mason