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 Oct. 14, 2026, challenging Medicare’s exclusion of audiologists from its opt-out and private-pay option. The plaintiffs argue the rule violates constitutional protections by treating audiologists differently from other providers; the government’s response and the case’s outcome are not provided in the source material.
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 making private-pay agreements with patients. The case, filed against the federal government, argues that the restriction denies audiologists a choice available to several other healthcare providers and limits patients’ ability to pay directly for care.
The case, Academy of Doctors of Audiology, et al. v. Kennedy, names Dr. Jill Davis, Dr. Alicia Spoor and the ADA as plaintiffs. Pacific Legal Foundation is litigating the case without charge. The plaintiffs allege the Medicare restriction violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process because audiologists are excluded from an opt-out option available to physicians and several other provider groups.
Under the arrangement challenged in the suit, providers who opt out of Medicare can avoid the program’s billing requirements and payment limits and contract directly with patients who agree to pay out of pocket. The source report says the option is available to physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, clinical psychologists, registered dietitians, marriage and family therapists, and mental health counselors, but not audiologists.
The complaint argues there is no rational basis for treating audiologists differently from those providers. That is the plaintiffs’ legal position, not a court finding. The case is active in federal court, and the supplied report does not describe a ruling or the government’s response.
How the Rule Could Affect Hearing Care
The lawsuit could affect how audiology practices serve patients who want to pay directly rather than use Medicare. If the plaintiffs prevail, audiologists could be allowed to formally opt out of Medicare and enter private-pay agreements for care with willing patients. The case therefore concerns both providers’ business options and patients’ choices when arranging hearing-related services.
The plaintiffs also point to the financial and administrative pressures Medicare rules place on practices. According to the source report, reimbursement for audiology services can fall below the cost of providing care, while paperwork and referral requirements can add time and complexity. Those concerns are offered as part of the case’s rationale; the filing’s claims have not been established by a court.
Any change would depend on the court’s decision and the scope of any relief ordered. The source material does not establish how many practices or patients would use private-pay contracts if the restriction were lifted, or how the change would affect costs or access in practice.
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
Medicare covers some audiology services, including diagnostic hearing and balance tests, but the report says it does not cover hearing aids or the exams required to fit them. Whether a service is covered can depend on the clinical indication. Many services are already paid for directly by patients when they fall outside Medicare coverage, according to the report.
For covered care, the plaintiffs say audiologists and patients cannot simply agree to step outside Medicare and pay privately. The report also describes a physician-order requirement before a patient can see an audiologist under Medicare, a longstanding point of dispute in the profession. The ADA has supported proposals related to direct access and audiology practice rights, according to the report, but this lawsuit focuses on the opt-out restriction.
“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 quoted in a release
personal sound amplification device
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions Await Court Review
The supplied report does not include the government’s response, identify a hearing date, or describe any ruling. It is also unclear when the court may consider the case or whether the plaintiffs are seeking a particular form of immediate relief in addition to challenging the rule.
The allegations that audiologists are treated without a rational basis and that the restriction violates constitutional rights remain claims in the lawsuit. The court has not, based on the information provided, determined whether the rule is unlawful. The likely effect on patient costs, provider participation and access to care would also depend on any eventual decision and its implementation.
digital audiometer for audiologists
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Federal Case Moves Forward
The case will proceed in federal court, where the plaintiffs’ challenge and the government’s position can be considered. The source material gives no schedule for the next filing, hearing or decision. Future developments to watch include any response from federal officials, court rulings on the claims and whether the court orders a change to Medicare’s opt-out policy.
Until a court acts or the policy changes through another process, the report describes audiologists as remaining unable to use the private-pay opt-out available to the provider groups listed in the case. Any broader effect on audiology practices and Medicare patients remains dependent on the outcome.
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 suit. Pacific Legal Foundation is representing them without charge, according to the source report.
What Medicare rule are they challenging?
The plaintiffs challenge the rule that bars audiologists from opting out of Medicare and entering direct private-pay agreements with patients for care.
What are the plaintiffs alleging?
They allege that excluding audiologists from the opt-out option violates equal protection and due process because other listed healthcare providers can use it. These are allegations for the court to assess, not established findings.
Has the court ruled on the case?
The source material says the case is active in federal court, but it reports no ruling and does not provide a court schedule or the government’s response.
What could change if the plaintiffs win?
A ruling in their favor could allow audiologists to opt out of Medicare and contract directly with willing patients. The actual scope and effects would depend on the court’s decision; the source report does not establish how many patients or practices would use the option.
Source: rss
Fall Picks
fall essentials
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
