Revise and repeal provisions related to the licensure of athletic trainers.
Impact
The proposed changes will affect several statutory provisions, including the criteria for licensure which focuses on the qualifications necessary for practitioners. Notably, this bill mandates that candidates must complete necessary educational requirements set by the Board of Certification for Athletic Trainers and pass an accredited exam. By clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of the Board of Medical and Osteopathic Examiners, the bill seeks to bolster public trust in athletic training services, enhancing professionalism and accountability within the field.
Summary
Senate Bill 151, titled 'An Act to revise and repeal provisions related to the licensure of athletic trainers', aims to update and streamline the legal framework governing athletic trainers in South Dakota. The bill amends existing statutes regarding the definition, practice, and licensure requirements of athletic trainers, enhancing the professional standards required to obtain a license. With these revisions, the efficiency of the application procedure is expected to increase, which promotes a more regulated practice environment for athletic trainers in the state.
Sentiment
Overall, the sentiment around SB151 appears largely positive among stakeholders, as it reflects an intention to strengthen and professionalize the field of athletic training. Supporters emphasize that these amendments will foster better healthcare outcomes for athletes through improved standards of care. However, concerns were noted regarding the implications of strict licensure requirements on the entry of new professionals into the field, potentially contributing to workforce shortages in certain regions.
Contention
One point of contention associated with SB151 is the balance between maintaining high standards for educational qualifications and ensuring accessibility for aspiring athletic trainers. While supporters argue that rigorous standards are essential for public safety and professional integrity, opponents question whether the heightened barriers to licensure might deter capable individuals from pursuing careers in athletic training, particularly in underserved areas. This aspect of the bill has spurred constructive debate regarding how to maintain quality without inadvertently hindering the entry of new practitioners.