SB1813 enacts the Athletic Trainer Compact in Oklahoma and authorizes the Governor to enter the compact with other participating jurisdictions. The compact is designed to let licensed athletic trainers more easily practice across state lines by creating a system of mutual recognition and “compact privilege” for qualified licensees from member states. It also aims to improve continuity of care, expand access to athletic training services, support workforce mobility, and facilitate telehealth and interstate practice while preserving each state’s authority over scope of practice and public protection.
To participate, a state must adopt substantially similar compact language, maintain licensure and continuing competence requirements, investigate complaints, share disciplinary and investigative information, and implement criminal background checks for compact-qualifying licenses. Individual athletic trainers must hold an active, unencumbered qualifying license, meet education and exam requirements, pass background checks, and comply with the remote state’s scope-of-practice and jurisprudence requirements. The compact also creates a multi-state commission with rulemaking, data-sharing, enforcement, dispute-resolution, and audit authority, and it sets rules for adverse actions, joint investigations, and termination or withdrawal of member states.
The bill’s legal effect is to add a new compact-based licensing framework to Title 59 of the Oklahoma Statutes and to supersede conflicting state laws to the extent of any conflict. It does not eliminate Oklahoma’s existing single-state athletic trainer license; instead, it adds an interstate pathway for qualified practitioners. The compact also includes provisions for military spouses, fee authority, confidentiality of investigative data, and immunity/indemnification for commission officials, while making the compact effective only after enactment by the seventh member state and setting Oklahoma’s effective date as November 1, 2026.
Overall sentiment appears generally favorable, with the bill advancing through the Senate Health & Human Services Committee, passing the Senate on third reading, and receiving a do-pass recommendation in the House Business Committee. The vote margins suggest meaningful but not unanimous support. The main policy appeal is improved portability and access to care, while the likely points of concern are the compact commission’s rulemaking authority, mandatory background checks and data sharing, the extent to which compact rules may affect state autonomy, and the enforcement/disciplinary powers that extend across member states.
SB1813 would create a new interstate licensure compact for athletic trainers in Oklahoma law, codified in Title 59, and would authorize Oklahoma to join the compact once the required conditions are met. It would affect the Oklahoma Board or other licensing authority by requiring participation in compact data systems, reporting of adverse actions, recognition of compact privileges, and compliance with compact rules. The bill preserves the state’s authority over athletic trainer scope of practice and single-state licensure, but it also allows compact rules to supersede conflicting state laws to the extent of the conflict.
The bill appears to have broad but not unanimous support. It passed the Senate Health & Human Services Committee 10-2, passed Senate third reading 34-13, and received a 7-1 do-pass recommendation from the House Business Committee. That pattern suggests the measure is viewed positively as a workforce and access-to-care initiative, though some members likely had reservations about interstate licensing, regulatory uniformity, and the compact’s administrative structure.
The likely areas of contention are the balance between interstate mobility and state regulatory control, especially the compact commission’s authority to issue rules that have the force of law in member states. Other possible concerns include mandatory criminal background checks, data sharing of investigative and disciplinary information, confidentiality issues, and the extent to which a remote state can restrict or remove a compact privilege. The bill also raises questions about how much Oklahoma would be bound by future compact rules and whether those rules could limit state-specific licensing preferences or enforcement practices.