BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 864
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 23, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION
Richard S. Gordon, Chair
AB 864 (Skinner) - As Amended: April 1, 2013
SUBJECT : Athletic trainers.
SUMMARY : Establishes the Athletic Training Practice Act (Act)
to license and regulate athletic trainers (ATs) through the
creation of an Athletic Trainer Licensing Committee (Committee)
under the Physical Therapy Board of California (Board), to
commence on July 1, 2014 and expire on January 1, 2019.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Declares that the provisions enacted by this bill may be known
and cited as the Athletic Training Practice Act.
2)Prohibits any individual from engaging in the practice of
athletic training unless duly licensed under the Act.
3)Prohibits a person from using the title "athletic trainer,"
"licensed athletic trainer," "certified athletic trainer,"
"athletic trainer certified," "a.t.," "a.t.l.," "c.a.t.,"
"a.t.c.," or any other variation of these terms, or any other
similar terms indicating that the person is an AT, unless that
person is duly licensed under the Act.
4)Permits an individual who has practiced athletic training in
California for a period of 15 consecutive years prior to July
1, 2014, and is not eligible for an athletic training license,
to use the title "athletic trainer" without being licensed by
the Committee, upon registration with the Board; provided that
no person may use the title "athletic trainer" on or after
January 1, 2017 without being duly licensed under the Act.
5)Establishes the Committee within the Board, which shall
consist of seven members, organized in the following manner:
a) Four licensed athletic trainers, as specified;
b) One public member;
c) One physician and surgeon licensed by the Medical Board
AB 864
Page 2
of California or one osteopathic physician and surgeon
licensed by the Osteopathic Medical Board of California;
and,
d) One physical therapist licensed by the Board.
6)Provides that the Committee shall sunset on January 1, 2019,
unless it is deleted or extended beyond that date, and further
subjects the Committee to the authority of the Joint Sunset
Review Committee after its sunset date.
7)Provides that, subject to confirmation by the Senate, the
Governor shall appoint two of the licensed ATs, the public
member, and the physician and surgeon or osteopathic physician
and surgeon; the Senate Committee on Rules and the Speaker of
the Assembly shall each appoint a licensed athletic trainer;
and the Board shall appoint the licensed physical therapist.
8)Provides that all appointments shall be for a term of four
years and shall expire on June 30 of the year in which the
term expires, with vacancies to be filled for any unexpired
term.
9)Provides that, for initial appointments made on or after
January 1, 2014, the public member appointed by the Governor
shall serve a term of one year. The athletic trainers
appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules and the Speaker of
the Assembly shall serve terms of three years, and the
remaining members shall serve terms of four years.
10)Provides that each member of the committee shall receive per
diem and expenses, as specified.
11)Authorizes the Committee to adopt, repeal, and amend
regulations as may be necessary to enable it to carry into
effect the provisions of the Act.
12)Authorizes the Committee, in promulgating regulations, to
consult the professional standards issued by the National
Athletic Trainers' Association (NATA), the Board of
Certification, Inc. (BOC), the Commission on Accreditation of
Athletic Training Education (CAATE), or any other nationally
recognized professional organization.
13)Requires the Committee to approve programs for the education
AB 864
Page 3
and training of ATs.
14)Requires the Committee to investigate each applicant before a
license is issued in order to determine whether the applicant
meets the qualifications required by the Act.
15)Requires that protection of the public be the highest
priority for the Committee in exercising its licensing,
regulatory, and disciplinary functions, and that whenever the
protection of the public is inconsistent with other interests
sought to be promoted, the protection of the public shall be
paramount.
16)Requires the Committee, except as otherwise provided, to
issue an athletic training license to an applicant who meets
all of the following requirements:
a) Has submitted an application demonstrating that the
applicant has graduated from an accredited and approved
professional degree program in athletic training at an
accredited and approved post-secondary institution or
institutions, as specified;
b) Has passed an athletic training certification
examination offered by BOC, its predecessors or successors,
or another nationally accredited athletic trainer
certification agency approved and recognized by the
Committee;
c) Possesses an emergency cardiac care certification from a
certification body approved by the Committee that adheres
to the most current international guidelines for
cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and emergency cardiac
care; and,
d) Has paid the application fee established by the
Committee.
17)Requires the Committee to issue an athletic training license
to an applicant who did not graduate from an accredited
athletic training education program as described above, but
who received athletic training via an internship, if the
applicant meets all of the following requirements:
a) Furnishes satisfactory evidence of completion of a
AB 864
Page 4
degree at an accredited post-secondary institution that
included instruction in basic sciences related to, and on
the practice of, athletic training;
b) Has passed an athletic training certification
examination offered by the BOC, its predecessors or
successors, or another nationally accredited AT
certification agency approved and recognized by the
Committee;
c) Completed at least 1500 hours of clinical experience
under an AT certified by the BOC;
d) Possesses an emergency cardiac care certification from a
certification body, approved by the committee, that adheres
to the most current international guidelines for CPR and
emergency cardiac care; and
e) Has paid the application fee established by the
Committee.
18)Declares that a license issued by the Committee to be valid
for two years and thereafter shall be subject to renewal
requirements.
19)Authorizes the Committee to establish license application and
renewal fees in an amount sufficient to cover the reasonable
regulatory costs of carrying out the Act.
20)Authorizes the Committee to renew a license if an applicant
meets all of the following requirements:
a) Pays the renewal fee as established by the Committee;
and,
b) Submits proof of all of the following:
i) Satisfactory completion of continuing education;
ii) Current athletic training certification from a
certification body approved by the committee, including,
but not limited to, the BOC, or its predecessors or
successors; and,
iii) Current emergency cardiac care certification from a
AB 864
Page 5
certification body approved by the Committee that adheres
to the most current international guidelines for CPR and
emergency cardiac care.
21)Authorizes the Committee to deny a license or the renewal of
a license for an applicant or licensee who is described by any
of the following:
a) Does not meet the requirements of the Act;
b) Has had an athletic training license, certification, or
registration revoked or suspended by an accredited
organization, state, or territory;
c) Has been convicted of a felony or any other crime that
substantially relates to the functions or duties of an AT;
or,
d) Has committed unprofessional conduct, as specified.
22)Authorizes the Committee to order any of the following
actions relative to an athletic training license after a
hearing for unprofessional conduct, which includes, but is not
limited to, a violation of the Act, any regulation adopted by
the Committee pursuant to the Act, and revocation or
suspension of an athletic training license, certification, or
registration by an accredited organization, state, or
territory:
a) Issue a training license subject to terms and
conditions;
b) Suspend or revoke the athletic training license; and,
c) Impose probationary conditions upon the athletic
training license.
23)Declares that the practice of athletic training includes all
of the following:
a) Risk management and injury or illness prevention;
b) The clinical evaluation and assessment of an injury or
an illness sustained or exacerbated while participating in
physical activity, or both;
AB 864
Page 6
c) The immediate care and treatment of an injury or an
illness sustained or exacerbated while participating in
physical activity, or both; and,
d) The rehabilitation and reconditioning from an injury or
an illness sustained or exacerbated while participating in
physical activity, or both.
24)Declares that the practice of athletic training does not
include the practice of physical therapy, the practice of
medicine, the practice of osteopathic medicine, the practice
of chiropractic medicine, the practice of nursing, or medical
diagnosis or treatment.
25)Requires an AT to refer a patient to an appropriate licensed
health care provider when the treatment or management of the
injury, illness, or condition does not fall within the
practice of athletic training.
26)Prohibits an AT from providing, offering to provide, or
representing that he or she is qualified to provide any
treatment that he or she is not qualified to perform by his or
her education, training, or experience, or that he or she is
otherwise prohibited by law from performing.
27)Defines "injury" or "illness" means an injury or illness
sustained as a result of, or exacerbated by, participation in
athletics or physical activity for which the AT has had formal
training during his or her professional education program,
including nationally recognized educational competencies and
clinical proficiencies for the entry-level AT or advanced
post-professional study, and falls within the practice of
athletic training.
28)Requires an AT to render treatment within his or her scope of
practice under the direction of a physician and surgeon
licensed by the Medical Board of California or an osteopathic
physician and surgeon licensed by the Osteopathic Medical
Board of California, with such direction provided by:
a) Verbal order when the directing physician and surgeon or
osteopathic physician and surgeon is present; and,
b) Written order or by athletic training treatment plans or
AB 864
Page 7
protocols, to be established by the physician and surgeon
or osteopathic physician and surgeon, when the directing
physician and surgeon or osteopathic physician and surgeon
is not present.
29)Authorizes the Committee, notwithstanding any other law and
consistent with the Act, to establish other alternative
mechanisms for the adequate direction of an AT.
30)Exempts from the requirements of the Act the following
individuals:
a) An AT licensed, certified, or registered in another
state or country who is in California temporarily,
traveling with a team or organization, to engage in the
practice of athletic training for, among other things, an
athletic or sporting event;
b) An AT licensed, certified, or registered in another
state who is invited by a sponsoring organization, such as
the United States Olympic Committee, to temporarily provide
athletic training services under his or her state's scope
of practice for athletic training;
c) A student enrolled in an athletic training education
program, while participating in educational activities
during the course of his or her educational rotations under
the supervision and guidance of an athletic trainer
licensed under the Act chapter or other licensed health
care provider; or,
d) A member or employee of the United States Armed Forces,
licensed, certified, or registered in another state, as
part of his or her temporary federal deployment or
employment in California for a limited time.
31)Declares that the Act does not limit, impair, or otherwise
apply to the practice of any person licensed and regulated as
a healing arts professional.
32)Declares that the Act does not require new or additional
third party reimbursement for services rendered by an
individual licensed under the Act.
33)Creates the Athletic Trainers' Account in the existing
AB 864
Page 8
Physical Therapy Fund.
34)Defines the terms "athletic trainer," "Board," and
"Commission".
35)Provides that the provisions of this bill related to title
protection, the structure of the Committee, the scope of
practice, and physician and surgeon direction of the AT shall
become operative on July 1, 2014, as specified.
36)Makes findings and declarations relative to the need to
regulate the profession of athletic training.
EXISTING LAW provides for the regulation of various professions
and vocations, including those of an athlete agent.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of this bill . This bill would create the Athletic
Training Practice Act to license and regulate ATs through a
Committee created under the Physical Therapy Board. The
Committee would have powers similar to other licensing boards
under the Department of Consumer Affairs to promulgate
regulations, approve training and educational programs,
investigate applicants and issue licenses, and order
disciplinary measures up to and including license suspension.
The Act would become operational on July 1, 2014 and sunset on
January 1, 2019 unless dissolved or extended before that date.
Opponents question the need for full licensure rather than
simple title protection, and also contend that the scope of
practice is overly broad and that the Committee should not be
located under the Board. This bill is sponsored by the
California Athletic Trainers' Association (CATA).
2)Author's statement . According to the author:
"Athletic trainers and other individuals are currently
practicing athletic training - a health care profession -
in an unregulated manner. Athletic training is recognized
by the American Medical Association as an allied health
care profession that is in the same category as physical
therapy and occupational therapy. Currently 48 other
states regulate athletic training due to the inherent risk
AB 864
Page 9
of individuals practicing healthcare without oversight.
Individuals have come to California from other
jurisdictions after losing their license or certification
and practice in the state. In some cases, individuals who
have no training, instruction, or experience in athletic
training (or any other health or medical profession) are
practicing as athletic trainers. They are employed by
schools, businesses and healthcare facilities. In some
cases, individuals such as janitors, coaches, shipping and
receiving clerks and others have been given the title
Athletic Trainer and the responsibility for doing things
such as evaluating and managing concussions, spinal cord
injuries, shoulder dislocations, and knee injuries. This
lack of oversight has caused harm to the public in
California and in other states.
"Furthermore, the lack of oversight of athletic trainers is
a consumer protection problem. The athletes with whom
these unqualified individuals work, and the employers who
hire them, have no way of knowing that these individuals
are not qualified to be athletic trainers. The public has
no way to determine if someone practicing athletic training
is qualified. The public has no way to file a complaint,
or ask for a practitioner to be investigated and/or
sanctioned for incompetence, unethical practice, etc. This
creates a huge regulatory gap in the healthcare system?.
"Additionally, athletic trainers are typically the most
available, and also the most qualified, health care
providers to evaluate symptoms of a head injury suffered at
a school practice or competition to determine if the
athlete has a concussion. However, current law bars
athletic trainers from managing concussions simply because
they are not licensed."
3)The practice of athletic training . ATs are physical medicine
and rehabilitation specialists who generally work in
institutional settings under the direction of a physician. In
practice, they are often the first healthcare providers on the
scene when injuries occur (particularly at sporting events),
and must be able to recognize, evaluate and assess injuries
and provide immediate care when needed. ATs operate with
substantial independence and professional decision-making
authority, as a physician need not be onsite with the AT, or
even to individually know or work with the AT's clientele.
AB 864
Page 10
The Act generally describes the practice of athletic training as
including the professional treatment of a patient for risk
management and injury or illness prevention, as well as the
clinical evaluation and assessment, immediate care and
treatment, organizational health and well-being, and
rehabilitation and reconditioning of a patient from an injury
or illness sustained or exacerbated while participating in
physical activity.
ATs are considered "health care professionals" by the American
Medical Association, which states that "athletic training
encompasses the prevention, diagnosis and intervention of
emergency, acute, and chronic medical conditions involving
impairment, functional limitations, and disabilities." ATs
are distinct from "personal trainers", who are generally
thought of as individuals who prescribe, monitor and modify
individual exercise programs in a fitness or sports setting.
Athletic training and physical therapy are also specific and
different professions, although there are some areas of
overlap.
ATs are usually employed by organizations such as professional
sports teams, colleges and universities, high schools,
outpatient rehabilitation clinics, hospitals,
industry/corporations, performing arts groups, physicians, the
military and health clubs. Roughly 44% of certified ATs work
with athletes in educational or professional sports setting,
with nearly 19% working in health care facilities, and over
10% working in industry, public safety and the military. The
sponsor reports that large employers use ATs in part because
of their utility in reducing employee injuries and worker's
compensation costs.
4)Current state of regulation for athletic trainers . The
educational system for athletic training has been standardized
and accredited by a national accreditation agency, CAATE.
According to the author, all 48 states currently regulating
athletic training utilize the BOC certification examination,
which is based on CAATE educational principles. BOC is the
only entity that currently provides athletic training
certification, which means that it would be the sole provider
of the certification exam required by this bill.
Certification is not mandatory to practice athletic training
in California, and non-certified individuals are not subject
AB 864
Page 11
to regulatory discipline.
Despite its widespread adoption, BOC has a limited ability to
investigate complaints against certified ATs because they have
no subpoena power and limited staff with no authority in
California. Its sole disciplinary power is the suspension or
revocation of the national certification which is not
recognized in California and thus poses no barrier to an
individual's continued practice.
According to the author, athletic trainers are already
licensed and regulated in the vast majority of states:
"?although 48 states in the nation license athletic trainers
and 30 of those states have sunset processes for their
licensure acts, no athletic training board has ever been
discontinued, demonstrating that there is a continuing need
for licensing in those states because of the investigative and
regulatory oversight they provide."
The sponsor notes that there are 47 states that regulate
athletic trainers, 39 of which provide licensure. The
remaining 8 states have elements of licensure, although
different terminology is used. Only Alaska and Hawaii do not
regulate athletic trainers in any form, although they have
legislation pending.
There are 16 accredited athletic training programs in
California. In 2010, 182 Californians were became certified
ATs.
Currently, there are approximately 2,500 certified ATs
practicing in California who would qualify for licensure as
ATs under the Act. The sponsor of this bill, CATA, represents
approximately 2,300 ATs in California.
5)Evidence of substandard practice . One rationale for licensure
is that an oversight body like the Committee can remove bad
actors from practice by suspending or revoking the license
that may be a precondition for employment. Licensure also
makes it difficult for unqualified individuals to hold
themselves out professionally as ATs.
According to the author, "[a] survey of 760 certified athletic
trainers for the Sunrise report found more than 60 cases of
harm as the result of improper care provided by non-certified
AB 864
Page 12
'athletic trainers.' According to the U.S. Department of Labor
Division of Practitioner Data Banks, a voluntary reporting
repository for sanctions made by state boards, there were 469
reports of sanctions to athletic trainers - both certified and
uncertified - from 2000 to 2010. These sanctions were based
upon misconduct including incompetent practice/harm,
practicing beyond the scope of practice, and sexual
misconduct. The BOC reported over 2,700 violations
[nationwide] of professional practice standards in five years
(2005-10) with nearly 300 violations in California, including
three sexual offenses. In a 2011 case, a collegiate athlete
died because of negligence of a collegiate athletic trainer,
although no lawsuit has been filed to date. Two additional
athletic trainers were fired after being arrested on sexual
abuse charges."
The sponsor reports that it is aware of at least 150
individuals practicing as athletic trainers without
certification in California high schools, and seven
individuals working in California community colleges who are
similarly unqualified.
The standardized training required for licensure and the
disciplinary oversight provided by the Committee are intended
to address these problems.
6)Proposed California licensure requirements . In order to be
eligible for licensure, applicants must have a professional
degree from an accredited institution, pass the national
written certification exam, possess an emergency cardiac care
certification, and pay the application fee. Individuals
without a professional degree would be required to complete at
least 1500 hours of clinical experience instead. Biannual
license renewal will be subject to continuing education
requirements, as determined by the Committee.
The Act requires ATs to refer a patient to the appropriate
health care provider when the treatment of an injury, illness
or condition falls outside of the AT's scope of practice. The
Act also requires ATs to render treatment only under the
written or verbal direction of a physician and surgeon.
Exemption from licensure will apply to ATs licensed in another
state or country operating temporarily in California due to a
sporting event, students participating in educational
activities under the supervision of a licensed AT, and active
AB 864
Page 13
members of the military.
7)Questions for the Committee . This bill currently establishes
the Committee as the responsible regulatory entity for ATs,
and locates it within the existing Physical Therapy Board.
The location of the Committee may prove to be problematic,
given the apparent overlap between the professions and the
opposition from some quarters of the physical therapy
profession. According to the sponsor, the reason for
colocation is simply administrative convenience and avoidance
of the cost of creating a new board. Nevertheless, the
Committee may wish to consider whether or not the licensing
body for ATs should be located under the board of a more
closely allied profession, such as the Medical Board of
California, or if its mission would be better served as an
independent board fully supported by licensing fees.
One critically important question is how the scope of practice
broadly set out in this bill compares with and overlaps other
professions. The California Physical Therapy Association
(CPTA) argues that this bill effectively permits ATs to engage
in diagnosis (physical therapists require a physician's
diagnosis) and grants a broader scope of practice than
physical therapists enjoy, which may or may not be merited by
their differing educational requirements. Given the
importance of consistency in setting scope of practice
relative to training and education, the Committee may wish to
inquire of the author and sponsor as to exactly how the scope
and educational requirements for ATs proposed by this bill
compare with those of related professions, such as physical
therapists, and whether or not the scope indicated by this
bill is clear, consistent and fair.
This bill also contains a confusing passage declaring that the
practice of athletic training does not include the "practice
of physical therapy, the practice of medicine, the practice of
osteopathic medicine, the practice of chiropractic medicine,
the practice of nursing, or medical diagnosis or treatment."
(BPC 2697.22(b)) Given the practical overlap that exists
between athletic training and physical therapy, for example,
this language read literally could be construed to restrict
athletic training only to those practices that do not fall
within the other cited professions - which presumably would be
minimal. This suggests that the language was intended to
communicate the semantic point that the same practices may be
AB 864
Page 14
described differently by different professions. The Committee
may wish to inquire of the author as to the necessity of that
language.
One alternative to licensure that has been proposed in
previous legislation is certification and title protection,
where AT's continue with certification without a regulatory
board, but use of the title of "athletic trainer" is reserved
by law only for qualified individuals. While this approach
would be simpler, less expensive, and likely less
controversial, the sponsor argues that the overall level of
consumer protection would be lower as well because there would
be no mechanism for investigating or disciplining unqualified,
incompetent or unethical practitioners. The Committee may wish
to inquire of the author as to the relative merits of a title
act approach versus the practice act approach taken by this
bill.
Finally, the Committee may wish to consider whether or not a
cap on licensing fees should be made explicit in this bill, as
it is with many other regulated professions, which provides a
legislative check against excessive licensing fees.
8)Technical amendments . There are two technical corrections
that the author may wish to consider.
Section 2697.8(f) of the bill related to the sunset date of
the Committee contains a reference to the now-defunct Joint
Sunset Review Committee. Given that the committee no longer
operates, and the sunset review process is now handled jointly
by the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development
Committee and the Assembly Business, Professions and Consumer
Protection Committee, that reference should be deleted.
Page 4, lines 8-12: on line 8, strike the word "The";
strike lines 9-12, inclusive.
Section 2697.20(b)(2) contains a typographical error.
Page 6, line 13: after a "certification body approved by",
delete "te" and insert "the"
9)Arguments in support . According to the sponsor, "Athletic
training is a profession that is regulated by 48 states,
recognized by multiple governmental and healthcare agencies as
AB 864
Page 15
a specific healthcare profession and which has a single
nationally accredited education and certification process. As
there is no defined scope of practice of athletic training in
the state, the status quo is an expansive scope of practice
and the ability of individuals to practice without any
preparation. Further, the public has no ability to register
complaints nor can the state investigate and sanction unsafe
or unethical providers. AB 864 will for the first time
provide a defined scope for this frontline medical profession
that is consistent with the extensive education, training and
certification of athletic trainers and ensure physician
oversight. It will provide assurance of minimum standards of
competence of practitioners and will allow those that are
practicing illegally, unsafely or unethically to be
sanctioned."
The American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) writes,
"AMSSM has long recognized the value and role of athletic
trainers within a Sports Medicine care team? Athletic
trainers play an essential role as the front line
healthcare professional for a well-functioning,
multi-disciplinary Sports Medicine care team. Athletic
trainers interact on a daily basis with the athletes for
whom they are caring, are well trained in acute injury and
illness evaluation and management, facilitate care from
other clinicians when needed, and work closely with team
physicians to provide comprehensive care for athletes.
"[AB 864] will provide state-specific regulation to the
practice of athletic training. This protects the public by
ensuring that those individuals who call themselves
"athletic trainers" have the proper educational credentials
and are adhering to accepted professional and ethical
practice standards. AMSSM is concerned that a failure by
the state of California to license athletic trainers when
licensure exists in 48 other states will promote a
situation where 'athletic trainers' in California provide
substandard care for athletes. For instance, athletic
trainers from other states who have lost their
certification or license may come to California to
practice.
"[AB 864] is a cost-neutral bill that will provide a
AB 864
Page 16
defined scope of practice to the profession of athletic
training in the state of California. It will provide the
public with the certainty that athletic trainers who are
practicing in their communities have the requisite skills
and educational background to function safely, and it would
allow the people of California the means to report and
investigate athletic trainers who are practicing in an
unsafe manner."
10)Arguments in opposition . According to the California Nurses
Association, "There are already qualified healing arts
practitioners currently licensed by the state who can perform
athletic training services, and thus there is no need to
create a new licensing category for athletic trainers. These
existing practitioners, like nurses, physical therapists, and
others already retain the education, and clinical training and
experience to provide these services in a way that is safe for
athletes. Further, we have very strong concerns with the
proposed scope of practice outlined in the bill which is very
broad and would endow athletic trainers with the practice
authority to treat, clinically evaluate, assess, rehabilitate,
and recondition 'patients'."
CPTA opposes the bill on multiple grounds, namely: 1) there is
insufficient evidence of a problem caused by a lack of
regulations, and that title protection alone would be an
appropriate middle ground; 2) the scope of practice of
athletic trainers as defined in the bill is "overly broad,
unsafe and inconsistent with the education and training of
athletic trainers", particularly in comparison to physical
therapists who have more stringent educational requirements
yet a narrower scope of practice; 3) the bill unwisely
outsources the certification of ATs to a for-profit company
located in another state; 4) the Board is not an appropriate
place to house the Committee because the Board would lack
disciplinary authority over ATs while taking on unwanted
financial responsibilities; and 5) physical therapists should
be exempted from the licensure requirements because of the
higher level of required education and training.
According to CPTA, the Joint Legislative Sunset Review Committee
analyzed the issue of licensure for athletic trainers during
its 2005 sunset review hearings, and found that "At this time,
there appears to be insufficient justification to license
athletic trainers. However, some sort of state recognition of
AB 864
Page 17
athletic trainers may be appropriate."
The California Federation of Teachers opposes the bill unless
amended to permit individuals who have been practicing as ATs
for more than 15 years to continue to use the title "athletic
trainer" indefinitely.
11)Previous legislation .
SB 1273 (Lowenthal) of 2012 was very similar to AB 864. SB
1273 failed passage in the Senate Business and Professions
Committee.
AB 374 (Hayashi) of 2011 in its most recent version would have
extended title protection to ATs. AB 374 was amended in the
Assembly Appropriations Committee to address an unrelated
issue.
AB 1647 (Hayashi) of 2010 would have extended title protection
to ATs. AB 1647 was vetoed by the Governor.
SB 284 (Lowenthal) of 2007 would have provided for
registration of ATs. SB 284 was vetoed by the Governor.
SB 1397 (Lowenthal) of 2006 would have provided for
registration of ATs. SB 1397 was vetoed by the Governor.
AB 614 (Lowenthal) of 2003 would have required the Department
of Consumer Affairs to review the need for licensing of ATs.
AB 614 was held in the Senate Business and Professions
Committee.
AB 2789 (Lowenthal) of 2002 would have required the Department
of Consumer Affairs to review the need for licensing of ATs
and undertake an occupational analysis. AB 2789 was held on
the Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense file.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Athletic Trainers' Association (sponsor)
American Medical Society for Sports Medicine
Advocates for Injured Athletes
California Community College Athletic Trainers' Association
AB 864
Page 18
1378 private individuals
Opposition
California Federation of Teachers
California Nurses Association
California Physical Therapy Association
Independent Physical Therapists of California
Mount St. Mary's College
Occupational Therapy Association of California
398 private individuals
Analysis Prepared by : Hank Dempsey / B.,P. & C.P. / (916)
319-3301