Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Audiology Scope Of Practice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Audiology practice update stalls after medical groups warn broader test‑ordering authority could risk misdiagnosis
Summary
SB118 sought to update the Audiology Practice Act to let audiologists order certain diagnostic tests and clarify routine earcare, but the committee rejected the bill after ENT physicians warned ordering tests without broader medical training could lead to misdiagnoses and unnecessary expense.
Senate Bill 118, presented by Representative Bentley with testimony from Dr. Kelly Linton (a licensed audiologist), would update Arkansas law to align audiology practice with contemporary doctoral training and to permit audiologists to order medically‑necessary diagnostic tests (e.g., imaging and certain lab tests), perform cerumen and foreign‑body removals, and carry out health screenings.
Why it matters: Supporters said modern audiology doctoral training (AuD) equips practitioners to identify conditions that require further medical evaluation and that allowing limited test ordering would speed diagnoses for patients—particularly in rural areas with few ENTs. Opponents said test ordering and use of diagnostic codes can be complex medical acts that require broader training and pose risks if tests and diagnoses are mishandled.
Support and testimony - Dr. Kelly Linton (audiologist) said the bill "is not about subverting appropriate referrals... it's about ensuring that patients get the right test at the right time" and argued audiologists already safely remove cerumen and foreign bodies in clinic. - The Academy of Doctors of Audiology supported modernizing statute to align with national standards and to increase rural access.
Opposition and concerns - Dr. Lance Manning (American Academy of Otolaryngology—ENT): urged caution and said the bill "is actually just frankly an expansion of practice," adding that ordering lab panels, non‑radiographic and radiographic imaging involves diagnostic reasoning and broader medical training. He argued erroneous test orders or inaccurate diagnostic codes can delay care, add expense, or place incorrect diagnoses in a patient's medical record. - Committee members questioned whether audiologists would interpret test results and how ordering authority would be constrained to auditory and vestibular indications.
Committee action and outcome - After extended discussion, members debated guardrails and whether the statutory language was too broad for test ordering. Representative McGee said the phrasing felt vague and he opposed the motion on that basis. The chair called the voice vote; the result reported in the transcript was "Noes have it." Outcome: SB118 failed in committee.
Ending: The bill prompted a policy debate balancing expanded access in underserved areas against patient‑safety questions raised by physicians. Sponsors and opponents signaled a willingness to refine language, but the committee did not advance SB118 in its present form.
