Changes in Audiology Visits at an Academic Audiology Practice Following the Food and Drug Administration Over-the-Counter Hearing Aid Ruling.

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Title:	Changes in Audiology Visits at an Academic Audiology Practice Following the Food and Drug Administration Over-the-Counter Hearing Aid Ruling.
Authors:	Weinstein, Hannah N. W.¹, Tucker, Lauren H.¹, Fernandez, Karla Y.¹, Galatioto, Jessica A.¹, Golub, Justin S.¹ justin.golub@columbia.edu
Source:	American Journal of Audiology. Dec2025, Vol. 34 Issue 4, p1013-1018. 6p.
Subject Terms:	Auditory perception testing, Academic medical centers, Retrospective studies, Hearing disorders, Professional practice, Research funding, Hearing aids, Medical appointments, Medical records, Acquisition of data, Audiologists, Data analysis software, Psychosocial factors, Sensitivity & specificity (Statistics)
Company/Entity:	United States. Food & Drug Administration
Abstract:	Purpose: In 2022, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) permitted the sale of over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids nationwide. The impact on audiology practice has not been well characterized. The purpose of this study is to determine if there was a change in the volume of hearing aid evaluations (HAEs) and comprehensive audiologic exams (CAEs) at an academic tertiary care audiology practice following the ruling. Method: Data were collected from the billing records of patients ≥ 18 years old. HAE and CAE visits, defined by Current Procedural Terminology and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes, were included. The number of visits was totaled for equal time periods (534 days) before and after October 17, 2022, when OTC hearing aid sales began. Sensitivity analysis (365 days before and after the ruling) accounted for seasonality. Change in visits per day over the entire period was calculated from the slope of the line of best fit. Results: The mean (SD) age was 60.5 (18.3) years. There were 20,300 combined HAE and CAE visits. Compared to before the ruling, over the entire study period (534 days), HAE visits increased by 12.0% (n = 57), CAE visits increased by 7.3% (n = 685), and combined visits (HAE and CAE) increased by 7.6% (n = 744) after the ruling. Over the entire study period (534 days), HAE had an increase of 0.084 visits/day, CAE had an increase of 4.56 visits/day, and combined visits (HAE and CAE) had an increase of 4.95 visits/day. Conclusions: The FDA OTC hearing aid ruling did not have a meaningful impact on the volume of HAEs and CAEs at an academic audiology practice. We found a small trend toward increased volume. Future studies should investigate visit patterns in other practice models to understand the full impact of the ruling on clinical audiology practice volumes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
	Copyright of American Journal of Audiology is the property of American Speech-Language-Hearing Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database:	Education Research Complete

Description
Abstract:	Purpose: In 2022, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) permitted the sale of over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids nationwide. The impact on audiology practice has not been well characterized. The purpose of this study is to determine if there was a change in the volume of hearing aid evaluations (HAEs) and comprehensive audiologic exams (CAEs) at an academic tertiary care audiology practice following the ruling. Method: Data were collected from the billing records of patients ≥ 18 years old. HAE and CAE visits, defined by Current Procedural Terminology and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes, were included. The number of visits was totaled for equal time periods (534 days) before and after October 17, 2022, when OTC hearing aid sales began. Sensitivity analysis (365 days before and after the ruling) accounted for seasonality. Change in visits per day over the entire period was calculated from the slope of the line of best fit. Results: The mean (SD) age was 60.5 (18.3) years. There were 20,300 combined HAE and CAE visits. Compared to before the ruling, over the entire study period (534 days), HAE visits increased by 12.0% (n = 57), CAE visits increased by 7.3% (n = 685), and combined visits (HAE and CAE) increased by 7.6% (n = 744) after the ruling. Over the entire study period (534 days), HAE had an increase of 0.084 visits/day, CAE had an increase of 4.56 visits/day, and combined visits (HAE and CAE) had an increase of 4.95 visits/day. Conclusions: The FDA OTC hearing aid ruling did not have a meaningful impact on the volume of HAEs and CAEs at an academic audiology practice. We found a small trend toward increased volume. Future studies should investigate visit patterns in other practice models to understand the full impact of the ruling on clinical audiology practice volumes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:	10590889
DOI:	10.1044/2025_AJA-25-00069