In January of this year the NATA Board of Directors voted to officially investigate a potential name change for the profession of athletic training.
In February, the group's mission and composition were presented to the board and approved, and in March the announcement was made to the general membership via the weekly e-mail Range of Motion. I was added just prior to the first conference call in April as it was determined that the young professional population needed to be directly represented.
As you can tell from the announcement, this is intended to be a thorough investigation taking all factors into consideration before making a recommendation.
I want to address a few of the questions I'm getting most often in a series of informational posts. If you have any further questions or want any additional information on anything I've referenced, please don't hesitate to contact me.
**Hasn't the Association done this before?**Yes, in 2003-04, under President Julie Max there was a Nomenclature Task Force that investigated the ramifications of changing the name of the profession and the association.
It was determined then that the association should not change the name of the profession. They did not find that "athletic trainer" was an acceptable or descriptive title, but found the risks to outweigh the rewards.
Below, I've summarized their findings and outlined some of the reasoning behind their recommendations.
(DISCLAIMER:This is a summary of a much longer, comprehensive report)
*Legal/Legislative Implications
~Every state law governing the practice of athletic training would have to be opened in order to provide protection of a new title. (In 2004, 30 states had regulation, currently 48 states have regulation). Opening the practice acts could allow for our "competitors" to have a say in our scope of practice. If that were to take place, however, the bill could be withdrawn preventing any changes from being made.
~The second major concern outlined related to the cost of the effort which would be substantial. This cost would, as with other state legislative moves, be paid by the various state associations and its members.
~The final concern in this relates to compliance. In order for a name change to be successful, it must be comprehensive. Every athletic trainer in every state would have to agree to go by the new title. Any variance among states would greatly hinder any potential federal legislative gains.
Membership/Leadership Perceptions
~The membership argued with passion on both sides of the name question; with many younger members favoring a name change while older members were generally against it. They didn't find this to be a rule, however, with many younger members not feeling a change to be necessary. (They did not investigate based on setting) They determined that changing the name of the profession would be very divisive for the association.
~The leadership were found to have much more defined opinions with most committees being against a name change, save for the Committee on Reimbursement who was unanimously for it. Most notably against a name change were the Governmental Affairs Committee and The World Federation of Athletic Training and Therapy.
Reimbursement & Education
~The group investigated the assertion that a name change would result in higher rates of reimbursement and determined that 1) some progress was already being made on these fronts and 2) with no guarantee of advancement as it relates to reimbursement it makes it difficult to move on a "might" given the costs associated.
~Bear in mind that this investigation came on the heels of the significant educational reform that ended the internship route to athletic training certification. Given that, it was determined that most of the education programs, public and private, were adamantly opposed to the name change. Additionally, there would be cost associated for each institution to reflect a change.
Other Considerations
~Corporate sponsors did not tie the value of their relationship to NATA to the professions' title and were in support of any decision the association made.
~Those associated with the Journal of Athletic Training were opposed to a change that would cause a title change to our publication as negatively effect the indexing in Index Medicus
~Our Allied Groups (BOC and REF in 2004) would be negatively affected. They found the REF would be negatively impacted with regard to relationships it cultivates with current and prospective donors. While the BOC may have to run parallel processes (one for athletic trainers and one for whatever alternative name is chosen) for most of its programs since a name change could not be uniformly implemented in all 50 states simultaneously.
**Why is the NATA investigating this again?**
Many of the Board of Director's reasons are listed in the initial announcement and relate to the changes in the political, healthcare and education landscapes. Health Care Reform is in full swing, there have been legislative gains with more state regulation as well as concussion legislation and with our recognition as a "health care provider" following the APTA lawsuit, the NATA feels that it is a good time to re-evaluate.
Additionally, our strategic partners, BOC, REF, CAATE are in support of the investigation at this time.
It is important to the group that this investigation be thorough, unbiased and transparent. If you have any questions or concerns please express them.
If you are a young professional and haven't already, please fill out this survey and make your voice heard in this critical discussion!
Continue to check back as I will work hard to keep you informed on this ongoing discussion!
No comments:
Post a Comment