Industry Beware! - Questions The NBFE needs to answer. - Personal Trainer Community - Forum

[Dan]

I’ve always had a passion for fitness. I benefited from exercise as an athlete in high school, as a Marine during operations in Bosnia, Somalia, and Haiti again as a division 1 athlete and today as a disabled veteran and health and fitness consultant. It is a passion that has led to a rewarding career. I have watched the personal training industry rise in popularity since the 80’s and now reluctantly see it suffering due to corporate greed and lack of consumer awareness.

In 1998 I began writing articles regarding the explosion of mail-in and fly-by-night certification associations. I worked to formulate a third party verification association whose mission was to verify the credentials of personal trainers based on the combination of their certification, education and experiences. Fundamentally it seemed like a logical and effective solution for our industry. However, I was quickly reminded that money is what drives most people, not principal. It was quickly made clear to me that a third party verification association was not what the industry needed nor what the big certification associations wanted. After all, they would be judged against one another and they did not want that to happen.

Since then, I have been personal training, managing health clubs, directing fitness departments and have started a few other fitness industry related ventures. I have sat back quietly working within the industry to broaden public awareness about personal training, the industry and the issues.

A growing number of fitness professionals now understand the vital need for us to discuss personal training with a bit more depth. Our discussions at the major industry conferences has allowed me to share the guts of this industry, according to my and many others perceptions, with the hopes you will take away some useful information to better serve your facility, trainers, and ultimately members.

Should Personal Trainers Have a National Board Examination?
No! This idea, as presented by the National Board of Fitness Examiners (NBFE), is in theory a great idea. It demonstrates that all personal trainers have a minimum level of knowledge and have passed a unified board examination. Here is where the theory is clashed by reality.

The NBFE does not recognize the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) or the National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) as affiliates whose trainers can sit in on their “board exam”. This was the first red flag since the ACSM and NSCA have perhaps the most stringent testing requirements of any organizations within the industry. Furthermore, they conduct their own peer reviewed research at the university level on a global scale and make their findings available to all members. Why would the NBFE not grant ACSM and NSCA trainers the opportunity to take their a national board exam?

The second red flag that made me question the intent of the NBFE surfaced as I sat in one of their day long board examination preparation courses. I was shocked to find the content presented was almost identical to that on the existing leading organizations certification exams. Why would the NBFE want to replicate the content a trainer is already expected to know?

The third red flag surfaced when I realized the founder and several of the board members are also the founders and board members of several of the certification associations whose testing and examination practices lacked the primary elements needed to ensure the integrity of their trainers knowledge. Most important of these measures is that the person taking the exam be proctored and secondly that there be a practical component to the exam to ensure the trainers can demonstrate proper form and training technique. Why would someone create an organization whose purpose was to ensure trainers took the types of exams that they themselves do not administer?

The fourth red flag was the realization that many of the affiliate organizations of the NBFE had not obtained accreditation through the National Organization for Competency Assurance (NOCA) whose mission is to “ensure the health, welfare, and safety of the public through the accreditation of a variety of certification programs and organizations that assess professional competency.” Why wouldn’t the NBFE affiliates just obtain NOCA accreditation to ensure their standards are up to par with the leading organizations?

Making sure all trainers have the same basic level of knowledge and ability is vital to the success and credibility of our industry. However, several organizations are already successfully doing this. What the NBFE is doing is not necessary since it only duplicates what already exists and will end up costing trainers an additional $300-$500. Trainers already spend enough money maintaining their certification and could better spend their hard earned money attending continuing education seminars that enhance their knowledge rather than duplicating information.

More importantly, the NBFE has also cautiously posed the argument in support of obtaining board certification in order to enable trainers to receive insurance reimbursement. If this is their goal than the proposed national board would only serve to propel the personal training industry into the hands of the seemingly inefficient insurance arena which is currently handling its own crisis as hospitals close and doctors leave the medical industry due to less than stellar reimbursement policies and practices.

Looking back at the last two decades in this industry, one thing is certain. Personal trainer certification associations are here to stay. They all have their value and each focuses on a different and important component that will serve to make the trainer more valuable to his/her client, gym, club or studio.

What our industry should do is insist that all associations obtain accreditation through NOCA. This will set a minimum standard while also respecting the individual niches of each certification association. We don’t need to recreate the wheel; we need to more effectively use the one we have.

[muscletrainerdh-NSCA CPT]

I had a doctor appointment in the midsummer. The doctor stated this very fact about the insurance industry. When I told him I was a personal trainer he said "To avoid dealing with Isurance companies at all costs".

The red flags you raise are very interesting seems pretty much like someone is trying to become the new top certifying agency, since ACSM and NSCA were left out.

I do think that a reduction in the number of certifying agencies is warranted. And all should petition NOCA for accrediation.


"More importantly, the NBFE has also cautiously posed the argument in support of obtaining board certification in order to enable trainers to receive insurance reimbursement. If this is their goal than the proposed national board would only serve to propel the personal training industry into the hands of the seemingly inefficient insurance arena which is currently handling its own crisis as hospitals close and doctors leave the medical industry due to less than stellar reimbursement policies and practices"
.

[Dan]

Insurance would be horrible for our industry

[Joe Cannon MS CSCS]

I agree. I dont think we want any part of insurance reimbursment. most of us have enough paperwork as it is!
Joe

[megfit]

I'm probably allowing this thread to veer off of Dan's WONDERFUL post on the problems with NBFE, but since insurance reimbursement came up, here I go:

Several years ago, registered dietitians became eligible to become Medicare providers for diabetes and pre-renal (kidney failure) conditions. What this meant is that now we HAVE to be Medicare providers in order to see people on Medicare with either of these conditions. An option is to officially opt out, but when we first became providers, I did all that was humanly possible to try to decipher how to do this. Even the people I talked to at Medicare couldn't help me!

Because Medicare was now covering these two conditions, it also meant that insurance companies would also cover them... for a limited number of visits and for a certain rate, only. Although I did not see that many people with diabetes at that time, that was the year I decided that I would refer all calls to centers. It is NOT worth my time and effort (and my money) to do the same work for less pay..

Medicare coverage and insurance reimbursement has NOT been a positive thing for most of the RD's I know. It's an ongoing hassle. Ah heck; I'll say it like it is; it's a nightmare.

Most of my nutrition clients since have been for either general weight loss, sports nutrition or food sensitivity counseling, none of which even have a CHANCE for insurance reimbursement. I made an early decision in my business that insurance was NOT an area I wanted to get involved in. Those RD's who do take insurance are always waiting for their money. Plus, some have had the insurance companies say they WILL cover a certain visit, and then, after the fact, say, 'oh, no, we won't cover that, afterall', The RD is stuck because he/she can't now go back to the client for their money!

There is talk about obesity being a covered 'condition' for Medicare. This will become another nightmare for RD's, as I'm sure we will be qualified providers for this 'condition' (sigh), also. I no longer take new 'nutrition' clients, and at least with coaching services, insurance is not an issue, regardless of health conditions a client has. If I stick to 'coaching' and not 'counseling', I'm safe. However, I don't need to point out the nightmare this will create for other health professionals.

Be glad, be very glad, that insurance reimbursement has not come to personal training!

Margie

[Joe Cannon MS CSCS]

getting back to Dans original post about the NBFE not letting ACSM or NSCA members sit in on their exam, I know at least one of their board members (not sure if the person is still affiliated with them or not) is NSCA certified and use to teach classes for me when I worked at a health club. So, it's even more ironic that they would not let us NSCA members in.
Also, Ive taught the NBFE prep exam and I'm NSCA certified..
Joe

[IHCNA]

Some thought provoking posts above. I would point this out...could it be that since affiliate certification by the NBFE is voluntary that ACSM and NSCA have never submitted to be affiliates? I realize that both are not included on the affiliate list, but being an affiliate is voluntary and not by invitation. The ACSM and NSCA were both present, along with ACE and others not on the affiliate list, at the initial conference to announce the mission and principles of the NBFE back in 2004. Knowing what I know about the ACSM and NSCA exams, they would pass the approval process to be an affiliate with no problem whatsoever. Don't misinterpret my post as an endorsement for the NBFE, but rather rethink the motives previously presented about the NBFE. Without a doubt, the fitness industry needs some level of standardization and multiple certifying organizations do no justice to the professionalism of the industry. Nursing doesn't have multiple exams. Physicians don't have multiple boards (except for their specialties). Other disciplines don't have multiple exams. Why is fitness special? I think we can all agree that some standardizing method is necessary, but how that is achieved is up for debate. Is one certifying exam the only way to achieve this goal? I don't know. But I do know this. In no way would any organization that makes the majority of its revenue endorse, let alone participate in, the development of an examination process that effectively supercedes the certification from the organization. That's just plain bad business. Given that ACSM and NSCA hold the positions and prestige of being the gold standard (though in somewhat different aspects of personal training) in our industry, why would they want to be affiliates or even support the success of the NBFE? They already hold the top spots, know their exams are good, and supporting the NBFE would be self-destructive behavior for those organizations. I can't see either being a part of their own demise. Besides, I did my masters under 2 past Presidents of ACSM, and trust me, the egos there could never tolerate another organization telling them what was right or wrong when it comes to exercise.

Just to be devil's advocate here, I will point this out about the NBFE vs NOCA/NCCA. The NOCA/NCCA do nothing to demonstrate the validity of information tested as it pertains to fitness, exercise, and health. They do demonstrate reliability and they demonstrate that approved exams have validity when it comes to how that given organization presents fitness, exercise, and health. There is a big difference here. What the NBFE (as far as I can tell) is attempting to do, which would drive any organization nuts, is deliver an exam that is reliable and valid for the industry as a whole. Because every organization will have their own interpretation on the subtleties of fitness, exercise, and health, they will always disagree on what a unifying certification exam tests for.

Let me reiterate, I am not posting this to endorse the NBFE. However, I am saying that our industry needs to strive for something more than the status quo. What we have currently is not getting it done and the lack of standardization of professionalism plays into the hands of low cost alternatives for exercise and fitness. Don't think for one second that IHRSA, the health club trade association, would ever support this being that its Board of Directors is dominated by corporate commercial club executives from the likes of 24 Hr Fitness, Bally's, and such. Their business models depend on the minimization of costs and standardization of personal training would mean higher payrolls which would cut into the profit margins of an industry that is already suffering from a lack of participant expansion. Make no mistake, the lack of involvement of certain organizations with the NBFE goes FAR DEEPER than just the fact that they feel the NBFE is a rouge non-profit. This is political and a lot of money is at stake.

If you're ever interested, I formed and run an organization for idependent health club managers called the Independent Health Club Networking Association. You can find it at www.ihcna.org. Its free to join.

[Joe Cannon MS CSCS]

those are some good points to be sure and I'm sure that eventually things will change in the industry.

[kaiserS]

That's something that definitely makes this field unique - it's largely UNREGULATED - This isn't necessarily a bad thing - You just have to make that people know they are in good hands when working with you, as you're not just another part-time trainer -

[Carol]

I think that the industry should have some sort of standardization, especially in the practical area. It couldn't hurt, cpts have a huge amount of responsibility in regards to client safety. I think it is a matter of time until the industry tightens up. Washington D.C. and New Jersey are working on a senate bill (SB2164) for mandatory cpt licensing. If passed, there could be a lot of change in the way of certifying organizations. :shock:

http://www.ideafit.com/fitness-libra...censing-debate