Virginia Regulatory Town Hall
Agency
Department of Health Professions
 
Board
Board of Medicine
 
chapter
Regulations Governing the Licensure of Athletic Trainers [18 VAC 85 ‑ 120]
Previous Comment     Next Comment     Back to List of Comments
5/2/25  3:19 pm
Commenter: Chris Casola

Strongly Support
 

I am writing to express my strong support for allowing licensed athletic trainers to include dry needling within their scope of practice. This important advancement would significantly benefit student-athletes across Virginia by improving access to timely, effective musculoskeletal care and aligning our practices with both state and national standards for excellence in sports medicine.

It is essential to clarify the distinction between dry needling and acupuncture, as these modalities are often mistakenly equated. While both involve the use of fine, filament-like needles, their foundations and applications differ greatly. Acupuncture stems from traditional Chinese medicine and focuses on restoring energy flow through meridian points. In contrast, dry needling is a contemporary Western medical technique targeting myofascial trigger points to alleviate muscle pain and dysfunction.

Athletic trainers are extensively educated in the evaluation, treatment, and rehabilitation of musculoskeletal injuries. With appropriate training in dry needling, they are well-equipped to administer this technique safely and effectively. Numerous states already permit certified athletic trainers to perform dry needling, recognizing both their clinical proficiency and the growing need for integrated, efficient care within sports environments.

This issue is particularly critical for student-athletes, who rely on athletic trainers for daily care. These athletes often face frequent and intense physical demands, leading to both acute and chronic musculoskeletal conditions. Allowing athletic trainers to perform dry needling ensures immediate, on-site access to evidence-based treatment, promoting faster recovery, reducing reliance on medication, and minimizing lost time from sport and academics.

Requiring student-athletes to seek dry needling from external providers introduces unnecessary delays and creates logistical and financial burdens for families and institutions. Moreover, external providers may lack the sport-specific knowledge and continuity of care that athletic trainers uniquely provide.

I respectfully urge the Board to support this vital update to the Medical Practice Act, enabling licensed athletic trainers to practice to the full extent of their training. Doing so will enhance the quality and efficiency of care provided to Virginia’s student-athletes and reflect the progressive standards of modern sports medicine.

 

CommentID: 234172