ReviewSeminars in hearing2026
Audiology's Nomenclature and Taxonomy Under the Law: Implications for Access and Coverage of Audiology Services.
Review in Seminars in hearing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Access to audiology services is shaped not only by clinical competence but also by the statutory language that defines the profession under state licensure laws and federal Medicare policy. This article examines how audiology's legal nomenclature and taxonomy influence scope of practice, reimbursement, and patient access to hearing and balance care in the United States. State audiology practice acts and federal Medicare statutes are compared with those governing other clinical healthcare professions to identify structural differences in professional classification and covered services. The analysis demonstrates that many state practice acts have not evolved alongside the profession's transition to doctoral-level education, resulting in outdated definitions that fail to recognize contemporary responsibilities related to diagnosis, management, treatment, prescribing authority, and the use of clinical extenders. At the federal level, Medicare continues to classify audiology primarily as a diagnostic supplier service, creating gaps in coverage for treatment services and limiting participation in modern reimbursement models. These statutory and regulatory inconsistencies contribute to fragmented care, unnecessary administrative burdens, reduced access for Medicare beneficiaries, and underutilization of audiologists' clinical expertise. Modernizing professional nomenclature and taxonomy at both the state and federal levels is presented as a foundational step toward improving access, aligning regulation with contemporary practice, and strengthening hearing healthcare delivery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.