Questions About Athletic Training PRN Rates

When the Math Isn't Mathing - Bigger Questions About AT PRN Rates

Are California’s Recommended PRN Rates Meant for ATs… or Companies?

There’s been a lot of discussion around the California athletic training associations published recommended PRN rates.

I have reached out to California Athletic Trainers' Association in the past to discuss how they computed these rates down to the different regions... Crickets

On the surface, it’s a win:

➡️ More transparency

➡️ A benchmark for fair compensation

➡️ A step toward valuing ATs appropriately

But there’s a deeper question that isn’t being addressed clearly:

Who are these rates actually designed for?

Are these rates intended for:

Individual athletic trainers independently securing and negotiating their own contracts with events?

OR

Companies/organizations that are:

Recruiting ATs

Handling logistics

Carrying business liability structures

Managing communication with event operators

Taking on administrative burden and risk

Because those are two very different business models.

The Reality No One Wants to Say Out Loud

If you’re an individual AT negotiating directly with an event,

👉 that recommended rate makes complete sense as your target.

But if you’re working through a company, the structure changes:

That company is:

Finding the event

Negotiating contracts

Assuming operational risk

Handling last-minute staffing issues

Often fronting costs or absorbing cancellations

So naturally…

👉 There has to be margin somewhere.

👉 There has to be flexibility in the rate.

Otherwise, the PRN recommendation model doesn’t function. We have only created robots that can only regurgitate numbers with no context.

Where the Disconnect Happens

The tension comes when:

ATs expect full recommended rates while also

Wanting the convenience and security of being staffed through a company

At the same time:

Event operators are often unwilling to meet those recommended rates at scale

So companies sit in the middle trying to:

➡️ Pay ATs competitively

➡️ Stay financially viable

➡️ Actually get events staffed

The Bigger Question

Are we trying to:

Set a gold standard for independent AT compensation?

Or define a universal rate across all delivery models?

Because forcing one standard across both ignores the reality of how these services are actually delivered.

A More Honest Framework

Maybe the conversation should shift to:

Tier 1: Independent AT (direct contract rate)

Tier 2: Subcontracted AT (through staffing company)

Tier 3: Full-service medical coverage (higher rate to event, structured pay to ATs)

Not all PRN work is the same.

So why are we trying to price it like it is?

Final Thought

If we want to move the profession forward, we need to stop oversimplifying compensation and start acknowledging the different roles, risks, and business models involved.

Because clarity here doesn’t just impact pay…

👉 It impacts staffing

👉 It impacts sustainability

👉 And ultimately, it impacts whether events are covered at all