I am pleased with the passionate discussion this amendment generated.  I admire the comments of opposition and the reasons for such thoughts.  I do not question the amount of education and training with both professions, I do not doubt the passion of patient access, nor do I belittle the safety concerns brought to the forefront.  Both professions hold high level and elite certifications recognized by the Board of Medicine, both professions want patients to have well informed access to their medical provider and congruently hold safety paramount.  I did notice many themes throughout the discourse:

1) The comments in opposition were largely acupuncture centric, I would guess nearly all were from acupuncturist.  Conversely the comments in favor came from professionals such as physicians, PTs, educators, hospital administrators, dual credentialed rehabilitation professionals, and ultimately a professional that instructs acupuncturist in their art.  What a great endorsement for the athletic trainer is to have an individual that actually teaches acupuncturist stating that not only is the athletic trainer a highly qualified medical professional to perform this modality but continued to write that athletic trainers have historically been some of his better students.  

2) Multiple states have already endorsed the athletic trainer in the invasive/mechanical modality of dry needling.  This would be the case of The Commonwealth now meeting the minimal standards that are now becoming common across our nation to benefit the patient population.  

3) This appears to be a "medical turf war". Only one profession opposed this amendment, acupuncturist, whereas multiple AMA recognized medical professions favored.  I was proud to be an athletic trainer during the open comment period, no comments belittled the training, education or the profession of acupuncture.  In contrast comments referring to athletic trainers as "personal trainers", referring to no or little higher education, not recognizing the required master's degree status, not identifying the education of multiple invasive procedure needed to pass the national certification needed to be licensed in the Commonwealth or the well over 1000 hours of practice needed to be eligible to take our national exam.  

I was proud that the athletic training profession elevated their comments to uplift patient care, safety and access.  Regardless of the outcome of the decision by the Board of Medicine, the athletic trainers of Virginia will continue, along with other medical professionals and professions that endorse this amendment, to strive for patient access to various rehabilitative services and techniques for the betterment of overall health of our fellow Virginias.