TL;DR
Turn quiet afternoons into listening time
- Thousands of audiobooks, podcasts and originals
- Listen on your phone, tablet or Echo — also offline
- Cancel anytime
Two private-practice audiologists and the Academy of Doctors of Audiology filed a federal lawsuit on October 14, 2026, challenging Medicare’s refusal to let audiologists opt out and make private-pay agreements with patients. The plaintiffs say the exclusion violates constitutional protections; the case is active, and no ruling has been reported.
Two private-practice audiologists and the Academy of Doctors of Audiology filed a federal lawsuit on October 14, 2026, challenging a Medicare rule that prevents audiologists from opting out of the program and contracting directly with patients who agree to pay out of pocket. The case, Academy of Doctors of Audiology, et al. v. Kennedy, seeks to give audiologists the same private-pay option available to several other healthcare professions; the case is active, and no decision has been reported.
The plaintiffs are Dr. Jill Davis, an Austin, Texas, private-practice audiologist and ADA president; Dr. Alicia Spoor, a private-practice audiologist and former ADA president; and the ADA. Pacific Legal Foundation is representing them without charge, according to the report by The Hearing Review. The suit names Kennedy in its case title and challenges the federal government’s Medicare policy.
The complaint argues that the exclusion violates the Constitution’s equal-protection and due-process guarantees. The plaintiffs contend there is no rational basis for treating audiologists differently from providers who can opt out, including physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, clinical psychologists, registered dietitians, marriage and family therapists, and mental health counselors. Those are the plaintiffs’ legal claims, not findings by a court.
Federal law allows eligible providers who opt out of Medicare to avoid the program’s billing requirements and payment limits and to make private agreements with patients. Audiologists are excluded from that option, according to the report. The lawsuit says the restriction applies even when a patient and audiologist both want to arrange direct payment for a service that Medicare otherwise covers.
How the Rule Affects Audiology Care
A ruling for the plaintiffs could let audiologists formally opt out of Medicare and contract directly with patients willing to pay privately. That could change how some practices handle covered care, including billing and payment arrangements. The lawsuit does not establish that such contracts would become available: that depends on the court’s decision and any steps required to implement it.
The dispute also concerns patients’ choices and practice operations. Davis reports that the average patient at her practice is 70 years old, making Medicare policy relevant to a substantial part of her patient base. The report says audiologists face paperwork and payment limits under Medicare, and that reimbursement for some services may be below the cost of providing them. Those concerns are presented as part of the plaintiffs’ case and the profession’s argument; the lawsuit’s outcome and broader effects remain unknown.
The practical stakes are shaped by Medicare’s coverage boundaries. The program covers some diagnostic hearing and balance tests, but not hearing aids or the exams required to fit them, according to the source report. Direct-pay arrangements already apply to many services outside Medicare coverage. The plaintiffs want the option to make such agreements for covered services too, without being confined to Medicare’s terms.
professional audiology hearing test equipment
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Medicare’s Audiology Rules
Audiologists’ relationship with Medicare involves more than the opt-out restriction. The source report says Medicare requires patients to obtain a physician’s order before seeing an audiologist, which can add paperwork and delay care. Direct access to audiologists has been a subject of proposals and debate, including legislation and other efforts discussed in earlier industry coverage. The present lawsuit, however, challenges the private-pay exclusion; it does not itself change the referral requirement.
The report also describes financial pressures for small practices, which may need to offset low reimbursement by charging more for services Medicare does not cover or by limiting spending on equipment and staff. Those operational concerns help explain why the plaintiffs say the restriction matters, but they are not court findings. The ADA is also pursuing broader professional priorities, including practice accreditation, according to the report.
“Medicare’s rule forces audiologists and patients into a government-controlled system, even when both sides want the freedom to work together directly.”
— Joshua Polk, Pacific Legal Foundation attorney, in a statement cited by The Hearing Review
personal sound amplification devices
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Questions the Court Must Resolve
The court has not decided whether Medicare’s exclusion is unconstitutional or whether audiologists should be allowed to opt out. The source report does not provide a hearing date, a government response, or a schedule for the next major court action. It also does not specify what relief the plaintiffs have requested beyond challenging the rule.
It remains unclear how a ruling for the plaintiffs would be implemented, which audiologists or patient arrangements would qualify, and whether the government would appeal an adverse decision. Claims about reimbursement shortfalls and effects on access are part of the case’s context, not proof that changing the rule would produce a particular result.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Federal Case Moves Forward
The lawsuit is now before a federal court. The next developments will depend on the court’s schedule and the parties’ filings, including any response from the government and subsequent rulings. No timetable or hearing date is stated in the source report.
Readers following the case should distinguish court decisions from the plaintiffs’ allegations and statements by their lawyers. Until a judge rules, Medicare’s current exclusion remains in place, and audiologists cannot rely on the lawsuit alone to make private-pay contracts for services covered by the program.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
Who filed the lawsuit?
Dr. Jill Davis, Dr. Alicia Spoor, and the Academy of Doctors of Audiology filed the case. Pacific Legal Foundation is representing them without charge, according to The Hearing Review.
What Medicare rule are they challenging?
The suit challenges the rule that prevents audiologists from opting out of Medicare and making private-pay contracts with patients for covered care. Several other healthcare professions have an opt-out option.
What do the plaintiffs say is unconstitutional?
They argue that excluding audiologists while allowing other provider types to opt out violates equal protection and due process. Those are allegations in the lawsuit, not a court ruling.
Has Medicare changed its policy?
No policy change is reported. The case is active in federal court, and the current exclusion remains in place unless it is changed through a court decision or other government action.
When will the court decide the case?
The source report does not give a hearing date or decision timeline. The next steps depend on the court’s schedule and filings from the parties.
Source: rss
Halloween Picks
halloween
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
