Policy Research Brief, Vol. 31, No. 4

Hearing aids are disproportionately inaccessible for individuals with disabilities

policy research brief, institute on community integration, university of minnesota

Research Issue

Hearing loss is a global public health problem. In the United States alone, hearing loss affects 37 million adults. However, only 14% of adults 50 or older use hearing aids. High out-of-pocket costs are consistently cited as the largest barrier to hearing aid adoption (Jilla et al., 2020).

At least 30% of adults with IDD have a co-occurring hearing loss, twice that of the general population (Jarvis et al., 2023). Adults with IDD are also less likely to be properly diagnosed with hearing loss and treated with hearing aids (Bertelli et al., 2022).

Untreated hearing loss has been correlated with reductions in cognitive function, emotional health, psychosocial well-being, financial stability, and overall quality of life. In contrast, using hearing aids has been linked to fewer emergency department visits, improved general health and awareness, and greater quality of life (Mahmoudi et al., 2018).

Study Background

For this Policy Research Brief, we reviewed key research on the need for hearing aids and the barriers to uptake among people with disabilities.

Policy Recommendations

Local and national policy changes are needed to provide coverage for prescription hearing aids for people with public or private insurance.

Congress should support legislation that addresses this issue. Current bills include:

  • H.R. 33 and S. 842, the Medicare Dental, Vision, and Hearing Benefit Act of 2023, which provides Medicare coverage for hearing healthcare services, including hearing aids, and
  • H.R. 5408 and S. 2767, the SSI Savings Penalty Elimination Act, which eliminates the restrictive asset limits placed on SSI beneficiaries, and
  • HR 500 addresses Medicare coverage of hearing aids (https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/500 ).

Expand the use of ABLE accounts to allow SSI recipients to save money for disability-related expenses without having those resources counted against them for eligibility purposes.

Key Findings

Access to prescription hearing aids is limited, even for those with health insurance.

A map of the United States showing which states have a Medicaid benefit for hearing aids and which states do not. A bar graph showing that 18.7% of children and 4.6% of adults with private insurance live in areas where private insurance coverage of hearing aids is mandated.

Medicare offers no coverage for prescription hearing aids.

Private insurance coverage for prescription hearing aids is only mandated in 26 states. 18.7% of children aged 18 and under have private insurance, and 4.6% of privately- insured adults live in areas with these mandates.

Medicaid coverage of prescription hearing aids varies greatly by state. Medicaid reimbursement for hearing healthcare services is decreasing, leading to more healthcare facilities opting out of serving Medicaid patients (Planey, 2019).

Supplemental Security Income and asset restrictions may restrict hearing aid uptake.

A drawing showing a person standing in front of a closed door with SSI written on it in large letters, and a hearing aid behind it.

Many adults with disabilities rely on Supplemental Security Income (SSI), a federal safety net program. To participate in the program, individuals must have no more than $2000 in assets, including personal property. However, the average cost of a single digital hearing aid is $2500, making it unaffordable for most SSI recipients (Jilla et al., 2020).

Over-the-counter hearing aids are not appropriate for everyone.

Less expensive over-the-counter hearing aids may help some adults, but:

  • They are not clinically recommended for many kinds of hearing loss (Urbanski et al., 2021);
  • They are based on a self-fitting model, which may not work for people with intellectual or cognitive disabilities (Cross et al., 2022), and
  • They may be too expensive for people with limited or fixed incomes.

Policy Forum

The Policy Forum is a bi-monthly web-based presentation and facilitated discussion exploring research published in the most recent Policy Research Brief. Please visit the website for details and to view previous forums.

Published December 2024

Guest editors: Eric Mitchell and Sherri Larson

Editor-in-chief: Julie Bershadsky

Graphic design: Connie Burkhart

Policy Research Brief: z.umn.edu/rtcprb

Research cited:

Bertelli, M. O., Deb, S., Munir, K., Hassiotis, A., & Salvador-Carulla, L. (Eds.). (2022). Textbook of psychiatry for intellectual disability and autism. (1st ed., pp. 849–867). Springer, Cham.

Cross, H., Dawes, P., Hooper, E., Armitage, C. J., Leroi, I., & Millman, R. E. (2022). Effectiveness of hearing rehabilitation for care home residents with dementia: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 23(3), 450-460.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2021.11.011

Jarvis, E. N., McAuliffe, D., Dayan, M., & McDevitt, J. (2023). Sensory and balance impairments in Special Olympics athletes: An epidemiological study. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 48(4), 446-455.

Jilla, A. M., Johnson, C. E., & Huntington-Klein, N. (2020). Hearing aid affordability in the United States. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 18(3), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2020.18 22449

Mahmoudi, E., Zazove, P., Meade, M., & McKee, M. M. (2018). Association between hearing aid use and health care use and cost among older adults with hearing loss. JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, 144(6), 498–505. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2018.0273

Planey, A. M. (2019). Audiologist availability and supply in the United States: A multi-scale spatial and political economic analysis. Social Science & Medicine, 222, 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.01.015

Urbanski, D., Hernandez, H., Oleson, J., & Wu, Y.-H. (2021). Toward a new evidence-based fitting paradigm for over-the-counter hearing aids. American Journal of Audiology, 30(1), 43–66. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_AJA-20-00085

Download a 2-page PDF of this issue of Policy Research Brief

Development of this Policy Research Brief was supported by Cooperative Agreement #90DNPA0001-01 and Grant #90RT5019 from the Administration on Community Living to the University of Minnesota. Points of view do not necessarily represent official ACL policy.

The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer. This document is available in alternative formats upon request.

The Institute on Community Integration (ICI), collectively acknowledges that Minnesota is located on the traditional, ancestral, and contemporary lands of the Anishinaabe, Chippewa, Ojibwe, Dakota, Cheyenne, and other Native peoples. This land holds great historical, spiritual, and personal significance for its original stewards, the Native nations and peoples of this region. We affirm tribal sovereignty and will work to hold ourselves and affiliations accountable to American Indian peoples and Nations.

Ongoing oppression and discrimination in the United States has led to significant trauma for many people of color, immigrants, people with disabilities, and other oppressed persons. At ICI, we affirm our commitment to address systemic racism, ableism, and all other inequalities and forms of oppression to ensure inclusive communities.