Health Occupations - Licensed Athletic Trainers - Dry Needling Approval
The passage of HB172 would significantly impact the practice of athletic trainers, granting them a broader range of responsibilities in treating injuries and musculoskeletal issues. By regulating dry needling, the bill ensures that only trained and approved professionals can administer this therapy, which can provide relief for various conditions related to muscle pain and dysfunction. This could lead to improved patient outcomes and more comprehensive care available through athletic trainers, who often work in physical rehab and sports medicine environments.
House Bill 172, known as the Health Occupations - Licensed Athletic Trainers - Dry Needling Approval Act, aims to authorize licensed athletic trainers in Maryland to perform dry needling as a specialized task. The bill defines dry needling and establishes requirements for athletic trainers to receive approval from the State Board of Physicians, indicating that licensed trainers must undergo a minimum of 80 hours of instruction, including hands-on training in dry needling techniques. This legislative move seeks to enhance the scope of practice for athletic trainers in the healthcare system.
The general sentiment surrounding HB172 appears to be supportive among health professionals advocating for expanded roles for athletic trainers, as well as from organizations focused on sports medicine. Proponents argue that enabling athletic trainers to utilize dry needling will streamline care and remove barriers that patients face in accessing this treatment. However, it may face opposition from practitioners who believe that dry needling should remain strictly within the domain of physical therapists and other qualified healthcare providers, suggesting a potential debate over professional scope and patient safety.
Notable points of contention include discussions about the ongoing evaluation and assessment procedures necessary for athletic trainers to remain compliant with the new regulations, as well as concerns about adequate training and the qualifications required for performing dry needling. There may also be differing opinions on whether dry needling falls within the proper scope of practice for athletic trainers, potentially leading to further legislative debate or amendments to clarify authority and responsibilities.