TL;DR
Get workout gear delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
Two private-practice audiologists and the Academy of Doctors of Audiology filed a federal lawsuit on October 14, 2026, challenging Medicare’s exclusion of audiologists from the option to opt out and make private-pay agreements with patients. The plaintiffs argue the rule treats audiologists differently from other healthcare professionals without a rational basis; the court has not ruled, and the effects of any decision remain uncertain.
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 pay out of pocket. The case, Academy of Doctors of Audiology, et al. v. Kennedy, argues that the restriction unlawfully treats audiologists differently from several other healthcare professionals.
The plaintiffs are Dr. Jill Davis, president of the Academy of Doctors of Audiology and owner of Victory Hearing & Balance in Austin, Texas; Dr. Alicia Spoor, a former ADA president and co-owner of a private audiology practice; and the ADA. The case was filed in federal court and is being litigated without charge by Pacific Legal Foundation.
The complaint alleges that Medicare’s rule violates constitutional protections for equal protection and due process. The plaintiffs say federal law lets physicians and a number of other provider groups opt out of Medicare and arrange private-pay care with patients, while excluding audiologists. The other professions cited include nurse practitioners, physician assistants, clinical psychologists, registered dietitians, marriage and family therapists, and mental health counselors. These are the plaintiffs’ legal claims; the court has not resolved them.
The lawsuit also describes practical burdens associated with Medicare participation. The source report says Medicare covers some diagnostic hearing and balance tests but not hearing aids or the exams required to fit them. Coverage for testing may depend on the clinical reason for the test. Audiologists also face a physician-order requirement for Medicare patients, and the plaintiffs say billing rules and reimbursement rates can add costs and delays for practices and patients.
How Opt-Out Rights Could Affect Hearing Care
The case could affect whether audiologists and willing patients can agree to private payment for services within Medicare’s scope without using the program’s billing framework. If the plaintiffs prevail, audiologists could gain an option already available to specified other provider types. The precise reach of any change would depend on the court’s ruling and how federal agencies apply it.
The issue is relevant to older adults because Medicare patients make up a substantial part of many audiology practices. Davis says her average patient is 70 years old. The plaintiffs argue that Medicare’s coverage limits, referral requirements, and payment rules constrain practice operations and patient choice. Those concerns are arguments advanced in the litigation, not findings made by a court.
A decision could also have implications beyond the named practitioners. The ADA’s participation makes the case a challenge brought on behalf of a professional organization as well as individual clinicians. But the lawsuit does not itself change Medicare rules, and patients should not assume they can currently enter private-pay contracts with audiologists for covered services.
Top picks for "audiologist file federal"
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Medicare’s Audiology Coverage Rules
Under the framework described in the source report, audiologists cannot formally opt out of Medicare in the way certain other providers can. Opting out generally permits eligible professionals to step outside Medicare billing requirements and enter private contracts with patients who agree to pay directly. The plaintiffs say the exclusion leaves audiologists without that choice even when both provider and patient prefer it.
Medicare’s treatment of hearing care is not all-or-nothing: some diagnostic services may be covered, while hearing aids and fitting-related exams are not covered under the rules described in the report. The source also identifies the requirement for a physician’s order before a Medicare patient sees an audiologist as a longstanding point of debate in the profession. Separate proposals concerning audiology access have been discussed, but the lawsuit at issue here challenges the private-pay exclusion.
The Academy of Doctors of Audiology has also worked on professional practice issues, including accreditation standards. Its role in this lawsuit signals that the dispute is not limited to one clinic’s billing arrangements, though the case remains focused on the legality of the federal rule.
“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
The Court Has Not Ruled
The lawsuit is active in federal court, and no ruling is reported in the source material. The court has not determined whether the Medicare rule violates the Constitution or whether audiologists are legally comparable to the provider groups that may opt out.
The available report does not give a schedule for hearings, a response from the federal government, or a likely decision date. It also does not establish how many practices or patients would choose private-pay arrangements if audiologists were allowed to opt out. Any effect on access, costs, or care patterns therefore remains uncertain.
The Lawsuit’s Next Court Steps
The case will proceed through federal court, where the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims and the government’s response will be considered. The source report does not identify a hearing date or the next scheduled filing, so the immediate procedural timetable is not clear.
Until a court decision or a change in federal policy, the challenged restriction remains in place as described by the report. Any later ruling could be appealed, and the practical consequences would depend on the ruling’s scope and implementation.
Key Questions
Who filed the lawsuit?
The plaintiffs are Dr. Jill Davis, Dr. Alicia Spoor, and the Academy of Doctors of Audiology. Pacific Legal Foundation is litigating the case without charge.
What Medicare rule are they challenging?
They challenge the rule that prevents audiologists from opting out of Medicare and making private-pay contracts with patients for care. The lawsuit argues that other listed healthcare professionals have this option while audiologists do not.
What do the plaintiffs say is unconstitutional?
The plaintiffs allege that excluding audiologists violates equal protection and due process because, in their view, the distinction from other providers lacks a rational basis. Those claims have not been decided by the court.
Does the lawsuit change what Medicare patients can do now?
No change is reported. The case is active, and the challenged rule remains in place unless a court decision or policy change alters it.
When will the case be decided?
The source report does not provide a hearing date or expected decision date. The court timetable is not yet clear.
Source: rss
Halloween Picks
halloween
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
