Skip to main content

In the Midst of a Concussion Crisis, Why Does Oklahoma Artificially Limit the Number of Athletic Trainers?

Several Oklahoma news outlets have recently taken a deep dive into the problem of concussions in high school football. Stories have examined the inadequate data tracking of the Oklahoma State Schools Activity Association (OSSAA), an effort to legally require schools to keep an ambulance on site at football games, and even the differences in rules between high school and college ball that encourage quarterbacks to take additional hits rather than throw the ball away. 

Notably absent from the coverage has been mention of the overly restrictive licensing regime the state has set up for athletic trainers, which artificially restricts the supply of athletic trainers when they are apparently sorely needed.

 My research on the subject found that half of Oklahoma’s counties (38 of 77) do not have a single licensed athletic trainer. Others present an even more dire situation, reporting that only 13% of schools have a full time athletic trainer and only 32% even have a part time trainer. Of those counties that do have practicing athletic trainers, 10 have only 1 in the entire county.

This dearth of athletic trainers is unsurprising given the relatively cumbersome process of obtaining a license. Budding athletic trainers must obtain a 4-year college degree to be licensed. Contrasted with Oklahoma’s paramedic training requirement (itself unnecessarily onerous) that can be completed in just over six months, the 4-year degree requirement seems a little overboard.

What’s worse, the way Oklahoma’s licensing law is written creates a perverse incentive to avoid seeking the advice of a medical doctor. The law defines athletic training as rendering certain services to athletes “upon written protocol from the team physician or consulting physician to effect care.” Accordingly, any activity undertaken without consultation of a physician falls outside the scope of the license, and thus cannot be prosecuted for unlicensed practice. A volunteer or coach who effectively serves as the trainer on the team puts himself at risk of prosecution if—and only if—he follows a doctor’s protocol. For a high school with strained resources or located in an area without a licensed trainer, it is likely this practice occurs regularly.

The spate of recent news coverage of concussions has examined the usual policy prescriptions proposed by interest groups and politicians to address such hard to manage problems (more legal mandates, more funding from the state, more data tracking), but there is a simpler option that never gets talked about. Rather than erecting unnecessary barriers through lengthy and cumbersome licensing schemes, let’s reduce the obstacles to training and deploying athletic trainers. That is, let’s get rid of the licensing requirement all together.

Our athletic trainer licensing law unnecessarily restricts otherwise qualified individuals from providing needed services to our kids. Consider a retired military medic who wishes to volunteer as an athletic trainer for her son’s high school football team, at a school without the resources to hire a licensed athletic trainer. Under current law, it is a crime for her to volunteer her services, unless she does so without following a doctor’s protocol. The athletes on the team must make do with unguided assistance, or simply do without any assistance at all. How does this promote health and safety?

Concussion protocols are actually fairly easy to come by, and have been successfully implemented at the college and pro level in recent years. The information (and training) is available. It shouldn’t take more than a short, once a year training course to get that information and training to every high school in the state. It certainly doesn’t require a 4-year degree. What is needed to make protocols successful is a dedicated person on each team whose primary job is to see them through.

If the Legislature wants to make a dent in the concussion problem, it can do so - without spending a dime - by repealing the athletic trainer license.

Benjamin Lepak is Legal Fellow at the 1889 Institute. He can be reached at blepak@1889institute.org.

Popular posts from this blog

The Truth About COVID-19: Better Than You Think

As the media turns its attention back to COVID-19, there is a renewed push to shut down the economy. Some states have even begun to scale back reopening plans for their economies; others continue to delay opening. It is essential to look past their catastrophizing and focus on the facts of COVID-19. One fact to consider: while testing has risen 23%, the rate of positive results has only risen 1.3 percentage points to 6.2%. Even as alarmists point to the rise in cases, they still admit that the boost in testing has played a role in the rise in the total number of known cases. Therefore, the total number of positive cases is not of much use in this case, as it only paints a partial picture. The rate of increase in total positive cases is a more meaningful measure, and it has barely increased. Even more important is who is getting infected. The data show that recent cases are primarily younger people. But that’s a good thing; these are precisely the people that are key to building herd ...
Read more

Cronyism: Feature, Not a Bug, for Used Car Dealer Licensing

Used car dealers in Oklahoma are governed by the Oklahoma Used Motor Vehicle and Parts Commission (UMPV). Like most licensing boards, it is made up of industry insiders. The UMVP's stated mission is to protect consumers from harm, but its structure and history indicate that its primary concern might be protecting licensed dealers from competition. This, of course, is the prime directive of all licensing boards. My recent paper deals with the licensing of used car dealers.   The person hit hardest by this is the hobbyist, especially in times of economic turmoil.   Imagine someone stuck at home due to coronavirus. We'll call him Frank. He can’t work due to the economic shutdown. Unfortunately, Frank’s lack of work does not mean he no longer has to put food on the table for his family. Fortunately for him, he is able to find a good deal on a used car that needs a little work. Frank has all the tools and garage space necessary to fix up the car and isn't violating any quar...
Read more

Present Reforms to Keep the Ghost of State Questions Past from Creating Future Headaches

Oklahoma, like many western states, allows its citizens to directly participate in the democratic process through citizen initiatives and referendums. In a referendum, the legislature directs a question to the people — usually to modify the state constitution, since the legislature can change statutes itself. An initiative requires no legislative involvement, but is initiated by the people via signature gathering, and can be used to modify statute or amend the constitution. Collectively, the initiatives and referendums that make it onto the ballot are known as State Questions.   Recently, there have been calls to make it more difficult to amend the constitution. At least two proposals are being discussed. One would diversify the signature requirement by demanding that a proportional amount of signatures come from each region of the state. The other would require a sixty percent majority to adopt a constitutional amendment rather than the fifty percent plus one currently in place. ...
Read more

I Abstain: Why I Refuse to Vote in Judicial Retention Elections

Over a million Oklahomans voted in the recent November 3rd election. For most, the presidential race between Joe Biden and Donald Trump is what drove them to the polls. However, some were likely confused when they reached the bottom portion of their ballot marked “Judicial Retention Elections.” What are judicial retention elections? Every two years, certain judges are placed on the ballot for a simple yes/no retention vote. These elections stem from Oklahoma’s   judicial selection method , and ask voters whether they want to keep, or retain, certain judges. Elections are staggered so judges only face retention every six years. Many claim that the merit selection method is a more sophisticated, apolitical judicial selection method than the federal model or the partisan election model, but in reality it is   much worse   than either of the two. In essence, the retention vote was a patronizing attempt to make “merit” selection more palatable to   voters back in the...
Read more