TL;DR
Get health and wellness essentials 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 program’s opt-out process. The plaintiffs say the rule unlawfully treats audiologists differently from other providers; the court has not ruled, and the government’s response and the case schedule were not 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 want to pay out of pocket. The case, Academy of Doctors of Audiology, et al. v. Kennedy, argues that the exclusion violates constitutional protections and matters to practices and patients seeking greater choice in how hearing care is paid for.
The plaintiffs are Dr. Jill Davis, an Austin, Texas, practice owner and ADA president; Dr. Alicia Spoor, a former ADA president and co-owner of a private audiology practice; and the association itself. The case was filed in federal court and is being litigated without charge by Pacific Legal Foundation, according to The Hearing Review. The lawsuit seeks to challenge the rule, but no court decision has been reported.
The complaint alleges that federal law gives physicians and several other provider groups—including nurse practitioners, physician assistants, clinical psychologists, registered dietitians, marriage and family therapists, and mental health counselors—a way to opt out of Medicare and make private contracts with patients. Audiologists, the plaintiffs argue, are excluded despite being similarly situated. They contend that the difference lacks a rational basis and violates equal protection and due process. Those are the plaintiffs’ legal claims, not findings by a court.
Medicare’s audiology coverage can depend on the service and clinical indication. The program covers some diagnostic hearing and balance tests, but not hearing aids or the exams required to fit them, according to the report. Audiologists also face a requirement for a physician’s order before a Medicare patient can see them. The plaintiffs say Medicare payment rates can fall below the cost of providing services, placing added pressure on practices; the lawsuit’s outcome and any changes to those rules remain unresolved.
How the Case Could Affect Hearing Care
The case concerns whether audiologists and patients may choose a direct-pay arrangement for services covered by Medicare, rather than being subject to the program’s billing rules and payment limits. If the plaintiffs prevail, audiologists could gain an opt-out route similar to that available to certain other professionals. That could change how some private practices set up care and payment, though the filing alone does not alter current Medicare requirements.
The practical stakes extend to patients who rely on audiology practices, particularly older adults. Davis reportedly says the average patient at her practice is 70 years old, making Medicare rules central to its work. Whether private contracts would expand access, reduce administrative burdens, or change patient costs would depend on how any ruling is framed and how practices and patients respond. Those effects have not yet been established.
hearing aids for Medicare patients
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Medicare’s Audiology Payment Rules
Medicare covers some diagnostic audiology services but excludes hearing aids and related fitting examinations, according to The Hearing Review. That division means patients may encounter different payment rules for services delivered by the same practice. The report also describes a longstanding dispute over the requirement that Medicare patients obtain a physician’s order before seeing an audiologist, an issue addressed in past direct-access proposals and the Medicare Audiology Access Improvement Act.
The lawsuit focuses on a separate but related question: whether audiologists can formally opt out of Medicare and privately contract with willing patients. The ADA has also worked on practice rights and professional standards, including a recently launched practice accreditation program, according to the report. It is a named plaintiff in the case, giving the challenge implications beyond the two individual practices.
“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
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Court Ruling and Patient Effects
The reported material does not specify the relief requested in full, the government’s response, a hearing date, or a timetable for the case. No judge has ruled on the constitutional arguments, and the plaintiffs’ assertion that audiologists are treated arbitrarily remains contested litigation rather than an established finding.
It is also unclear how a ruling would apply across different audiology services or affect existing Medicare obligations. Even if the plaintiffs win, the scope of any remedy and whether patients would see changes in prices, access, or administrative requirements would depend on the court’s decision and subsequent implementation.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Federal Case Moves Forward
The case is active in federal court. The next developments are expected to include the government’s response and further court proceedings, but the source report did not provide a schedule. Any ruling would determine whether the challenge can change audiologists’ ability to opt out; until then, the reported Medicare rules remain in place.
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 litigating it without charge, according to The Hearing Review.
What Medicare rule are they challenging?
The plaintiffs challenge the rule that bars audiologists from opting out of Medicare and contracting directly with patients who choose to pay privately for care.
What does the lawsuit claim?
The plaintiffs allege that excluding audiologists from the opt-out option available to several other provider groups violates equal protection and due process. A court has not decided those claims.
Has the lawsuit changed Medicare rules?
No change has been reported. The case is active, and the existing rules remain in place while the court considers the challenge.
When will the court decide the case?
The source report does not give a hearing date or decision timeline. The government’s response and the next court milestones were also not specified.
Source: rss
Halloween Picks
halloween
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
