WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

AB 820

Relating to: the practice of audiology, licensure of audiologists, the composition of the Hearing and Speech Examining Board, and repealing an administrative rule related to the practical examination of audiologists. (FE)

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Jill Billings and 15 co-sponsors

Wisconsin bill updates audiology licensure standards and restructures the Hearing and Speech Examining Board to modernize practitioner regulations and streamline licensing requirements.

Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · AB 820

Legislative bill overview

AB 820 modernizes Wisconsin's audiology licensure requirements and governance by updating the practice standards for audiologists and restructuring the Hearing and Speech Examining Board. The bill also repeals an administrative rule governing the practical examination of audiologists, streamlining the licensing process.

Why is this important

Audiology licensing directly affects public access to hearing healthcare services and consumer protection. Updating these regulations can reduce barriers to practice, potentially increasing availability of audiologists while ensuring they meet current professional standards. Changes to the examining board's composition may shift who has decision-making authority over the profession.

Potential points of contention

  • Scope of practice expansion: The bill may broaden what audiologists can do, which could benefit patients seeking services but might generate opposition from competing professions (such as otolaryngologists or hearing aid dispensers) concerned about market encroachment
  • Board composition changes: Restructuring the Hearing and Speech Examining Board could alter the balance of power between audiologists, speech-language pathologists, and public members, affecting whose interests are prioritized in regulation
  • Examination standards removal: Repealing the practical exam rule may lower entry barriers and increase accessibility, but opponents may argue it compromises quality assurance or consumer protection

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.