Committee hears proposal to combine audiology and hearing‑aid boards; professionals urge fix to testing and fees

Senate Industry and Business Committee members heard testimony on Senate Bill 2203, a proposal from Sen. Judy Lee to consolidate the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists with the Board of Examiners for Audiology and Speech‑Language Pathology to streamline licensure and board processes.

Sen. Judy Lee said the bill responds to a recruitment problem in rural Jamestown where an audiologist who could have served the community faced an unexpected licensing hurdle to dispense hearing aids because that work is overseen by a separate board. “I would like the audiology board and the hearing aid specialist board to discuss how they might be able to work together,” Lee said, describing the proposal as an impetus for collaboration rather than an attempt to eliminate specialty oversight.

Testimony reflected a mix of support for the idea of greater coordination and substantial concern about specific provisions in the draft bill. A licensed hearing‑instrument specialist who testified for the hearing‑aid board said the hearing‑aid examination ensures safe, competent fitting and dispensing; that board supports consolidation in principle but opposes permitting licensed audiologists to be registered without passing the hearing‑aid practical exam. “We do have audiologists fail it,” the hearing‑aid specialist said, noting the practical dispensing exam evaluates skills not covered by every audiology program.

Dr. Marin Ulmer, a licensed audiologist and member of the audiology and speech‑language pathology board, said her board currently licenses audiologists with doctorate degrees using national examination results and that many audiologists choose to take the hearing‑aid practical test as a consumer‑protection safeguard. She and other board members warned the bill as drafted would substantially increase the workload of the combined board, likely require additional staff or technology investment, and could push licensing fees higher. Dr. Ulmer described differences in educational requirements across professions: doctorate for audiologists, master’s for speech‑language pathologists and lower minimum education for hearing‑aid specialists.

Robin Zeltinger, a speech‑language pathologist and board member, testified she is proud of the current board’s efficiency — licensing often completed in two to four days — and warned that adding hearing‑aid licensing duties and related examinations could slow service and require fee increases. She said the bill as written reduces speech‑language pathologist representation on the combined board and could create a disproportionate fee burden for SLPs, many of whom work in schools and may not be reimbursed for new licensing costs.

Witnesses and committee members suggested several paths forward including: - Convene the two boards to map a practical consolidation path rather than adopting the draft as written; - Retain a practical dispensing exam for any licensee who will fit hearing aids, even if the applicant is an audiologist; and - Consider uniform experience‑requirements and clarify board composition so representation reflects relative numbers of licensees and workload.

Committee members agreed the subject merited further discussion. Senators asked the affected boards to meet, consider options such as a shared exam or streamlined dual-application process, and report back; several senators recommended more time for parties to draft detailed solutions rather than advancing the bill in its current form.

No committee vote was taken on SB 2203 during the hearing. The committee closed the hearing and invited board members and stakeholders to work toward an agreed framework and return with proposed language if a consolidated structure is desired.