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

Top-Ten in Low Taxes, But Oklahoma Still Has Much Room for Improvement

In a comparison of states’ total taxes as well as spending in certain broad categories that the 1889 Institute has just published ( Oklahoma Government Revenues and Spending in Perspective – Update ), some interesting facts arise. Using federal data, we compared states by looking at the percentage of personal income collected in state and local government revenues. We also looked at the percentage of personal income spent in six broad spending categories: higher education, public education, public welfare, hospitals, highways, and corrections. The data shows that in 2017 Oklahoma’s state and local governments: Extract 13.2 percent of Oklahomans’ personal income in taxes and fees, moving Oklahoma into the Top Ten lowest-taxing states, ahead of Texas.   Spend 12.38 percent of personal income on the six featured spending areas (which include federal dollars), only a little below the national average of 12.7 percent. While 9th overall (least spent being first), Oklahoma is n...

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 ...

Even If Pandemic Models Were Right, Were Covid Lockdowns Wrong?

1889 has been quite critical of pandemic modeling that government officials have relied on for their Covid-19 response. We have also criticized shutdown orders in light of flaws in the models. But let’s assume for a moment that the worst predictions really would have come true if nothing was done. Even in those worst case scenarios, it’s fair to ask if our governments did the right thing. Were involuntary shutdowns justified, or would people have found a way to both limit the contagion and maintain some level of productivity? Was putting healthy citizens under house arrest acceptable even if they were willing to risk infection?   While large groups of people are often compared to herd animals, we are not sheep. We don’t behave like animals. We can, have, and will step up when our communities are in danger. When government and journalists give incomplete or false information, people will act irrationally. Depending on the situation, some will blindly follow the first aut...

Why Oklahoma's Method for Selecting Judges Is a Bad Idea

The state of Oklahoma selects supreme court justices using a system known as the Missouri Plan, which is a form of merit selection. Advocates paint a rosy picture of the plan, claiming that it is a more sophisticated system than the federal model or the election model and that it strikes the perfect balance between the other two systems. Unfortunately, that is simply not the case. Here is how the plan works: the Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC), a board of individuals who review candidates for vacancies on the supreme court, selects three candidates to present to the governor. The governor must select one of these candidates. If he does not, after 60 days, the Chief Justice selects one of the candidates to fill the vacancy. Once on the court, justices face an uncontested “retention election” every six years; however, not one justice has been voted off the court in the half century that this system has been in place. On its face this system might seem like a good idea, but...