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 program’s opt-out option. The plaintiffs argue the rule denies them rights available to several other healthcare professions; the court has not ruled on those claims.
Two private-practice audiologists and the Academy of Doctors of Audiology filed a federal lawsuit on October 14 challenging a Medicare rule that bars 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, asks the court to find that the exclusion violates constitutional protections; the claims have not been decided.
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. Pacific Legal Foundation is representing them without charge, according to the report by The Hearing Review. The complaint was filed in federal court, and the case is active.
The lawsuit says federal law allows physicians and a range of other providers—including nurse practitioners, physician assistants, clinical psychologists, registered dietitians, marriage and family therapists, and mental health counselors—to opt out of Medicare under specified conditions. Audiologists, the plaintiffs argue, are excluded despite being similarly situated. They contend the distinction lacks a rational basis and violates equal protection and due process.
Under the policy at issue, audiologists cannot formally leave Medicare and make private-pay agreements with patients for services covered by the program. The plaintiffs say this limits choices for providers and patients who would prefer to arrange and pay for covered care directly. The lawsuit seeks to change that legal barrier; its filing does not itself alter Medicare rules, and no outcome has been reported.
How the Rule Affects Audiology Care
The dispute concerns both patient payment choices and how independent audiology practices manage services covered by Medicare. If the plaintiffs prevail, audiologists could be allowed to opt out and enter direct agreements with willing patients, subject to the terms of any ruling and applicable law. That could change how some practices serve Medicare beneficiaries, including older adults who rely on hearing and balance care.
The plaintiffs also point to broader operational pressures. The Hearing Review reports that Medicare covers some diagnostic hearing and balance tests but not hearing aids or the exams required to fit them, and that coverage can depend on the clinical reason for a test. Audiologists must also obtain a physician’s order for Medicare patients, according to the report. These issues form part of the case’s practical setting, but the lawsuit described in the source specifically challenges the inability to opt out—not every Medicare coverage or referral policy.
For patients, the case does not mean they can currently bypass Medicare rules when seeing an audiologist. The policy remains in place while the case proceeds. A court ruling for the plaintiffs could create a new payment option, while a ruling against them would leave the challenged restriction intact unless changed through another legal or policy route.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Medicare’s Opt-Out Distinction
Medicare’s opt-out framework permits certain provider categories to leave the program’s billing system and establish private contracts with patients. According to the plaintiffs’ account, audiologists are among the provider types that cannot use that option. Their argument is that the government has not adequately justified treating audiologists differently from other professionals who provide healthcare services.
The plaintiffs also describe reimbursement and administrative burdens on audiology practices. The report says reimbursement for some services can fall below the cost of providing them, while physician-order requirements add paperwork and may delay access. Such concerns have featured in broader professional discussions about audiology access and Medicare policy. They are relevant background, but whether they establish a constitutional violation is a matter for the court.
Davis owns Victory Hearing & Balance in Austin, where she provides diagnostic hearing care, hearing-aid fitting, tinnitus care, and balance services, the report says. Davis has said that the average patient at her practice is about 70, making Medicare rules a substantial part of her practice’s work. Spoor is also a private-practice audiologist. The ADA’s role as a named plaintiff gives the dispute 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, attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation, as quoted in a release
professional audiology testing equipment
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Court Has Yet to Rule
The available report does not identify a hearing date, briefing schedule, government response, or expected decision date. It also does not provide the full requested remedies or detail how the plaintiffs propose any change should be administered. Those points may become clearer as filings and court proceedings continue.
The constitutional arguments remain allegations in a pending case. No finding has been reported that the rule is unlawful or that audiologists have a constitutional right to opt out. Until a court orders otherwise or the policy changes, the reported restriction remains in force. The source also does not establish how many audiologists or Medicare patients might use private contracts if the plaintiffs succeed.
balance testing devices for audiologists
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Federal Case Moves Forward
The lawsuit will proceed through federal court, where the government can respond and the parties can present their arguments. The next public milestones could include responses to the complaint, motions, hearings, or a decision on the merits, but the report gives no timetable. The case is being litigated by Pacific Legal Foundation, and the complaint is available through the organization’s website, according to The Hearing Review.
Any change to Medicare opt-out rights will depend on further court action or a separate policy change. Audiologists and patients should not assume that private-pay contracting for Medicare-covered services is permitted under the challenged rule while the case remains pending.
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, according to The Hearing Review.
What Medicare rule are they challenging?
The plaintiffs challenge the rule that prevents audiologists from opting out of Medicare and entering private-pay contracts with patients for care covered by the program.
What do the plaintiffs argue?
They argue that excluding audiologists from an option available to several other provider types is arbitrary and violates equal protection and due process. Those are claims in the lawsuit, not findings by a court.
Can audiologists opt out while the case is pending?
The reported restriction remains in place unless it is changed by a court or through policy action. The lawsuit’s filing does not itself authorize audiologists to make private contracts for Medicare-covered services.
When will the case be decided?
No hearing or decision date is provided in the source report. The case is active in federal court, and its schedule and outcome remain unclear.
Source: rss
Halloween Picks
halloween
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
