SB 943 revises Oregon’s audiology laws by updating key definitions and expanding the scope of practice for licensed audiologists. The bill changes the statutory definitions of “audiologist” and “practice of audiology,” and it expressly authorizes audiologists to prescribe, order, sell, dispense, and fit a broader set of hearing- and balance-related devices, including hearing aids, assistive listening devices, tinnitus treatment devices, vestibular treatment devices, auditory processing devices, and auditory rehabilitation devices. It also allows audiologists to externally fit sound processors for osseointegrated devices, cochlear implants, and auditory brainstem implants, and to perform certain screenings, cerumen removal, foreign body removal, imaging-related tasks, and blood work orders.
The measure also modernizes licensing and education provisions for the State Board of Examiners for Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology. It updates the qualifications for approved colleges and universities, clarifies who may practice without a license in limited circumstances, revises examination and licensure waiver provisions, and allows the board to recognize certain national certifications. In addition, it strengthens board investigation procedures by requiring notice to the subject of an investigation, disclosure of complaint information with redactions as needed, an opportunity to respond within 21 days, and board rules establishing timelines for investigations. The bill also requires the board to share investigation information with other licensing authorities or interstate compact bodies upon request, subject to law.
SB 943 would amend multiple sections of ORS chapter 681, including ORS 681.205, 681.230, 681.250, 681.270, 681.290, 681.300, 681.490, and 681.495, and it adds a new section to the chapter. The operative date for the substantive changes is January 1, 2026, and the act takes effect 91 days after adjournment sine die. Overall, the bill would broaden and clarify audiology practice authority while also tightening and standardizing board oversight and disciplinary procedures.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be a professional-regulation update rather than a controversial policy shift, with a focus on scope-of-practice clarification, licensure administration, and consumer/professional oversight. The main points of potential contention are likely to be the expanded clinical authority for audiologists and the new investigation and information-sharing requirements for licensees under board review.
SB 943 would amend Oregon’s audiology licensing statutes in ORS chapter 681 by redefining “audiologist” and “practice of audiology,” expanding the list of services and devices audiologists may provide, and updating licensure, examination, and waiver provisions. It also imposes new procedural requirements on the State Board of Examiners for Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology for investigations, including notice, complaint disclosure, response rights, investigation timelines, and interstate information sharing. The bill affects licensed audiologists, applicants, the board, and individuals subject to board complaints or discipline.
No committee discussion or vote history was provided, so the record does not show explicit support or opposition. From the bill text, the overall tone is administrative and professional-regulatory, suggesting a generally technical measure aimed at modernizing practice rules and board procedures rather than a highly partisan or ideologically charged bill. The absence of recorded objections or amendments in the supplied materials suggests no documented controversy in the available context.
The most likely areas of contention are the expanded scope of practice for audiologists—especially authority to order imaging, blood work, and fit devices associated with cochlear implants or brainstem implants—and whether those tasks should remain more tightly controlled. Another possible point of concern is the new disciplinary process requirements, including mandatory notice, complaint disclosure, response deadlines, and required investigation timelines, which may be viewed by some as improving due process and by others as constraining board discretion. The bill also gives the board broader authority to share investigation information with other jurisdictions, which could raise privacy or enforcement concerns for licensees.