Athletes who travel to competitions—and their parents—will breathe a little easier if house bill H.R.302, called The Sports Medicine Licensure Clarity Act, passes the Congress. The bill aims to protect medical professionals who work in sports medicine, people such as doctors, athletic trainers and physical therapists who also travel with high school, college and professional teams, according to David Geier, M.D. writing in The Post and Courier of South Carolina.
Sports Medicine Bill Before Congress
1 min read Premium comments
Secondary
The bill specifies that medical services provided by physicians, athletic trainers and other sports medicine professionals to an athlete while in another state would be held to satisfy licensure requirements of that state. Brett Guthrie of Kentucky and Cedric Richmond of Louisiana introduced the bill.
Many sports medicine organizations have argued for this legislation, including the National Athletic Trainers’ Association, the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.
Under the present system a doctor must obtain a medical license before he can practice in any particular state. Their medical insurance will only allow doctors to practice in the state where they have a license. The difficulty arises when the doctor travels with the team to other states to compete in tournaments.
“It is not easy to get a medical license. Sometimes it takes weeks or months. Some teams often play in as many as 10 states during a season and during play-offs, a teams may be assigned to play in a distant state only a few days in advance. Sports medicine professionals cannot complete licensure applications and differing requirements that fast,” said Geier.
React:
Discussion
This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?
Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.
We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.
Join the conversation
Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.