TL;DR
Get everyday helpers 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 contract privately with patients. The plaintiffs allege the rule violates constitutional protections by treating audiologists differently from other healthcare providers; 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 bars audiologists from opting out of the program and contracting directly with patients. The case, Academy of Doctors of Audiology, et al. v. Kennedy, argues the restriction unlawfully denies audiologists a choice available to several other healthcare professions and limits how patients can pay for care.
The plaintiffs are Dr. Jill Davis, president of the ADA and owner of Victory Hearing & Balance in Austin, Texas; Dr. Alicia Spoor, a former ADA president and private-practice co-owner; and the association itself. The suit was filed in federal court and is being litigated without charge by Pacific Legal Foundation, according to the report by The Hearing Review.
The complaint alleges that Medicare’s exclusion violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. The plaintiffs contend there is no rational basis for allowing physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, clinical psychologists, registered dietitians, marriage and family therapists, and mental health counselors to opt out while denying that option to audiologists. Those are the plaintiffs’ legal arguments; the court has not ruled on them.
Under the policy described in the report, audiologists who participate in Medicare cannot formally leave the program to provide covered services through private contracts with patients who choose to pay out of pocket. The plaintiffs say that leaves practices subject to Medicare’s billing rules, paperwork and payment limits even when a patient and provider would prefer a direct arrangement. The case seeks to change that restriction, but the reported material does not specify the full relief requested in the complaint.
How the Rule Affects Hearing Care
The lawsuit could affect how private audiology practices structure care for Medicare patients if the plaintiffs prevail. They say the current restriction limits patients’ ability to choose a direct-pay arrangement with an audiologist, while requiring practices to work within Medicare’s payment and administrative framework for covered services.
The issue is particularly relevant to older adults: Davis reports that the average patient at her practice is 70 years old, making Medicare rules a routine part of its work. The report says Medicare covers some diagnostic hearing and balance tests but not hearing aids or the exams required to fit them. Coverage can depend on the clinical indication, and some services are paid for directly by patients. The lawsuit concerns the ability to opt out for covered care, not a claim that Medicare covers hearing aids.
The practical effects of any court decision would depend on its scope and implementation. A ruling for the plaintiffs could permit audiologists to opt out and enter private contracts with willing patients; a ruling against them could leave the existing restriction in place. The case has not yet produced a decision.
audiologist private pay hearing test
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Medicare’s Audiology Rules
The legal dispute sits within a broader set of Medicare requirements affecting audiology practices. According to The Hearing Review, Medicare covers certain diagnostic hearing and balance tests, while excluding hearing aids and the examinations needed to fit them. The report also says patients generally need a physician’s order before seeing an audiologist under Medicare, a longstanding point of contention in the profession.
The plaintiffs say reimbursement for audiology services can fall below the cost of providing care, putting pressure on small practices to offset expenses through non-covered services or limit spending on equipment and staff. These concerns are presented in the report as the practitioners’ account of operating burdens, not as findings made by the court. The ADA has also pursued broader audiology practice-rights initiatives, including a recently launched accreditation program, according to the source.
“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 release
Questions the Court Must Resolve
The court has not ruled on whether Medicare’s distinction between audiologists and the other listed provider types violates the Constitution. The available report does not provide a response from the federal government or identify the government’s arguments in the case. It also does not state a hearing date, briefing schedule, or expected timeline for a decision.
It remains unclear how a ruling would apply to individual practices, which services or patient arrangements would be affected, and whether an appeal would follow. The potential impact described by the plaintiffs depends on the case’s outcome and the terms of any final order.
Federal Case Moves Forward
The lawsuit is active in federal court. The next developments will depend on court filings and any scheduled proceedings; no next milestone or decision date was included in the source report. The complaint is available through Pacific Legal Foundation, according to The Hearing Review.
Readers should watch for the government’s response, any ruling on the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims, and whether the court addresses the requested ability to opt out and contract privately. Until those steps occur, the Medicare rule remains the subject of a legal challenge rather than a policy change.
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 litigating it without charge, according to The Hearing Review.
What Medicare rule are they challenging?
The suit challenges the restriction that prevents audiologists from opting out of Medicare and contracting directly with patients for covered services, as described in the report.
What do the plaintiffs say is unconstitutional?
They allege the rule violates equal protection and due process because other healthcare professionals can opt out while audiologists cannot. Those claims have not been decided by a court.
Does the lawsuit mean Medicare will cover hearing aids?
No such change is reported. The case concerns audiologists’ ability to opt out and make private contracts; the source says Medicare does not cover hearing aids or the exams required to fit them.
Has a judge ruled on the case?
No ruling is reported. The case was filed on October 14, 2026, and is active in federal court.
Source: rss
Fall Picks
fall essentials
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
