AN ACT relating to the practice of audiology.
HB 444 revises Kentucky’s statutory definitions governing the practice of audiology and related speech-language pathology terms. The bill updates the definition of “practice of audiology” to expressly include evaluation, diagnosis, management, and treatment of auditory or vestibular conditions, and it clarifies that audiologists may prescribe, order, sell, dispense, or fit hearing aids, osseo-integrated device sound processors, and cochlear implant sound processors. It also adds specific services audiologists may perform, such as health screenings, removal of non-impacted foreign bodies or cerumen from the external auditory canal, ordering certain cultures, bloodwork, imaging, and topical otologic pharmaceutical agents.
At the same time, the bill narrows and clarifies the limits of audiology practice by expressly excluding surgery, osseo-integrated device surgery, cochlear implant surgery, radiographic image preparation/operation/performance, and independent diagnosis or treatment of suspected malignancies of the ear, external canal, or skull base, which must be referred to a physician. The bill also modernizes terminology around hearing devices and preserves the existing framework for speech-language pathology assistants, supervisors, interim licenses, and temporary licenses within Chapter 334A.
HB 444 would amend KRS 334A.020, the definitional section of Kentucky’s audiology and speech-language pathology licensing chapter, thereby affecting how the Kentucky Board of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology interprets scope of practice. The practical effect is to expand and clarify what licensed audiologists may do in clinical settings, while also drawing sharper boundaries around procedures reserved to physicians or surgeons. It would likely affect audiologists, hearing aid providers, patients seeking hearing-related care, and referral relationships with physicians and other licensed health professionals.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the bill appears to be a technical and professional scope-of-practice update rather than a highly partisan measure. The overall tone is likely supportive or neutral, as the bill modernizes terminology and clarifies authority for routine audiology services while preserving exclusions for surgery and cancer-related conditions. No formal opposition or recorded controversy is shown in the available context.
The main points of potential contention are scope-of-practice boundaries. Audiologists and their supporters would likely favor the expanded express authority to perform screenings, remove minor obstructions, order tests and imaging, and use topical otologic agents, while physicians and surgeons may be attentive to the bill’s explicit carve-outs for surgery, radiographic procedures, and suspected malignancies. Another possible issue is whether the new language could be read as broadening audiology practice beyond traditional hearing-aid fitting into more medicalized ear care, though the bill attempts to limit that concern through detailed exclusions.