ASHA Logo

Newborn Hearing Screening

Overview

The scope of this page is hearing screening for children ages 0-6 months of age. Newborn screening is but one part of a comprehensive Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) program of service.

Newborn hearing screening is the standard of care in hospitals nationwide. In 2011, 97.9% of babies born in the United States had their hearing screened in the first few weeks of life (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2011). The primary purpose of newborn hearing screening is to identify newborns who are likely to have hearing loss and who require further evaluation. A secondary objective is to identify newborns with medical conditions that can cause late-onset hearing loss and to establish a plan for ongoing monitoring of their hearing status (Joint Committee on Infant Hearing [JCIH], 2007). Infants who do not pass the newborn hearing screening (and/or rescreening) are referred immediately for a comprehensive audiologic evaluation, with a goal of having hearing loss confirmed by 3 months of age.

Screening programs target permanent childhood hearing loss (PCHL) irrespective of type. However, various protocols are more effective at identifying different types and degrees of hearing loss within different populations (i.e., well-infant nursery [WIN] or neonatal intensive care unit [NICU)].

Passing a screening does not mean that a child has normal hearing across the frequency range. Because minimal and frequency-specific hearing losses are not targeted by newborn hearing screening programs, newborns with these losses may pass a hearing screen. Because these losses have the potential to interfere with the speech and psychoeducational development of children (Yoshinaga-Itano, DeConde Johnson, Carpenter, Stredler Brown, 2008), hearing, speech, and language milestones should receive ongoing surveillance and monitoring throughout childhood.

The content of this Portal page is based on ASHA's Expert Panel Recommendations on Newborn Hearing Screening.

Expert Opinion

  • "All infants should have access to hearing screening using a physiologic measure before 1 month of age" (JCIH, 2007, p. 900).
  • Regardless of previous hearing screening outcomes, all infants are to receive ongoing surveillance of communication development, beginning at 2 months of age (JCIH, 2007).
  • Children should receive systematic hearing screening (through the medical home or as part of a school screening program) through adolescence. "Minimally, these screenings should occur for all children referred for early intervention services, and upon school entry" (ASHA, 2013, p. 6).
  • Because the typical settings of current screening technologies may not detect minimal or mild levels of hearing loss, reports of screening results should reflect this technological limitation (ASHA, 2013).
  • For infants born outside of the hospital, outpatient screening should take place no later than at 1 month of age (JCIH, 2007).

See the Screening: General Findings section of the permanent childhood hearing loss evidence map for pertinent scientific evidence, expert opinion, and client/caregiver perspective.

Key Issues

Roles and Responsibilities

Audiologists play an important role in the guidance, development, implementation, and oversight of newborn hearing screening programs. Professional roles and activities include training screeners, monitoring program outcomes, performing screenings, advocacy, education, administration, and research. See ASHA's Scope of Practice in Audiology (ASHA, 2004).

Roles and responsibilities include

As indicated in the Code of Ethics (ASHA, 2010), audiologists who work with in this capacity should be specifically educated and appropriately trained to do so.

General Considerations

Universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) programs typically include

(New York State Department of Health, Early Intervention Program, 2007; JCIH, 2007).

A state policy of performing screening without obtaining parental permission, or at least informing parents about screening, may violate constitutional protections of the parental role (Berge, 1992; Clayton, 1992; Fleischman, Post, & Dubler, 1994). Although many hospitals have global consents for all newborn screening procedures, screeners and personnel should be aware of hospital and state regulations regarding parental refusal.

Evidence Highlights

Evidence indicates that

Expert Opinion

  • Children with microtia/atresia or neonatal meningitis should not receive a newborn screen. Because children with microtia/atresia will always have some degree of hearing loss and there is a high-risk of hearing loss associated with bacterial meningitis, these children should automatically be referred for an early hearing evaluation (usually ABR) within 4 weeks of hospital discharge (Wood, Foley,Minchom, Parker, Robertson, & Sirimanna, 2010).

See the Screening: General Findings section of the permanent childhood hearing loss evidence map for pertinent scientific evidence, expert opinion, and client/caregiver perspective.

Standard Universal Precautions

All procedures must ensure the safety of the patient and clinician and adhere to universal health precautions (e.g., prevention of bodily injury and transmission of infectious disease). Decontamination, cleaning, disinfection, and sterilization of multiple-use equipment before reuse must be carried out according to facility-specific infection control policies and procedures and according to manufacturer's instructions (Siegel, Rhinehart, Jackson, Chiarello, & Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee, 2007).

Timing of Screening

Newborns cared for in the WIN are screened as close to hospital discharge as possible and at least prior to 1 month of age. NICU newborns are screened when they are ready for discharge and/or when they are medically stable.

Newborns who have initially passed a hearing screening are rescreened if readmitted to the hospital or if risk factors for hearing loss develop over the infant's hospital stay following the initial screening. State laws and hospital protocols may vary regarding which hospital is responsible for screening newborns transferred from one hospital to another.

Testing Environment

Screening can be done in a nursery or quiet room with the infant resting quietly or sleeping. A sound booth is not needed. The preferred method for testing is to have the newborn resting quietly in his/her bassinette, although, if needed, the newborn can be held.

Pass/Fail Indications

Care should be taken to screen newborns no more times than recommended in the protocol. The probability of an erroneous a "pass" outcome (i.e., of infants with hearing loss passing the screen) increases with every screen.

A newborn must pass screening in both ears during one session to be considered a "pass." If the newborn fails one ear, both ears must be rescreened. If the newborn passes the screening or the rescreening and has no risk factors for late-onset or progressive hearing loss, then the screening is complete. If the newborn passes the screen and has risk factors for late-onset or progressive hearing loss, then the newborn's hearing should be followed during early childhood (Harlor & Bower, 2009; JCIH, 2007).

Expert Opinion

See the Screening: Physiologic section of the permanent childhood hearing loss evidence map for pertinent scientific evidence, expert opinion, and client/caregiver perspective.

Technology

Auditory brainstem response (ABR) and otoacoustic emissions (OAEs) are appropriate physiologic measures for screening the newborn population. Both are noninvasive and available in automated versions that are easily utilized by trained hospital staff.

Both ABR and OAE technologies will miss delayed-onset hearing loss, mild hearing loss, or hearing loss that is only present at isolated frequencies; and both ABR and OAE responses are affected by outer or middle ear dysfunction. That is, when a transient middle ear condition is present, both will likely result in a "failed" screen. Both OAE and ABR screening reflect physiologic processes within the auditory system and identify hearing loss most accurately from 2k to 4kHz.

Automated technologies (those that determine pass/fail or pass/refer) do not require interpretation. Automated screening equipment often has test parameters set by the manufacturer, and, therefore, different equipment may yield different screening results (New York State Department of Health, Early Intervention Program, 2007).

Even if diagnostic (i.e., non-automated) technology is used and an audiologist is interpreting the results, procedures in the nursery are limited to screening (pass/fail). Equipment used should be calibrated and maintained according to manufacturer's specifications.

The primary factors that influence the selection of screening technology include the population to be screened (i.e., WIN vs. NICU), who will be conducting the screening (i.e., audiologists vs. trained technicians), and the size of the screening population.

Evidence Highlight

  • Evidence indicates that an assessment of the diagnostic accuracy of OAEs and ABR as screening tests is not possible, because these technologies have not been evaluated in a sufficiently large group of children who have no risk factors (Wolff, Hommerich, Riemsma, Antes, Lange, & Kleijnen, 2010).
  • Evidence indicates that newborn hearing screening by ABR or OAEs is often at least moderately effective at identifying permanent hearing loss in early childhood when behavioral audiometric threshold is used a s reference standard (Prieve, Sabo, Schooling, Culpepper & Tharpe, 2013).

Expert Opinion

  • Screening technologies that integrate automated response detection offer several advantages, including reduced screener error or operator bias, elimination of individual test interpretation, and increased consistency across screeners, infants, and test conditions (JCIH, 2007).
  • "If a screening is conducted by anyone other than an audiologist, the equipment needs to be automated (i.e., use set parameters and provide pass/fail results that do not require interpretation)" (ASHA, 2013, p. 6).

See the Screening: Physiologic section of the permanent childhood hearing loss evidence map for pertinent scientific evidence, expert opinion, and client/caregiver perspective.

Auditory Brainstem Response

ABR activity is a direct measurement of the neural response to sound that is generated along the auditory system from the level of the cochlea and through the VIII nerve and pontine-level of the brainstem and that correlates with behavioral hearing measures in the mid- to high-frequency region. ABR measurements are sensitive to neural auditory disorders (i.e., auditory neuropathy). The ABR is recorded using surface electrodes that are attached to the infant's head. Click stimuli are presented through insert or muff-style earphones that are worn on both ears. ABR screening is less sensitive to middle ear debris than OAE screening, resulting in lower referral rates.

Stimuli

Most automated equipment presents click stimuli at 35 dB nHL at a rate of 30-37/s. If the equipment allows a choice of stimulus levels, the screening program audiologist can adjust to lower click levels.

Response Criteria

For automated ABR or AABR, manufacturers use their own proprietary stopping rule, based on a template comparison or statistical algorithms. Most instrumentation does not allow for operators to change the stopping rule criteria.

Procedure

The infant should be asleep or resting quietly for the test and positioned to reduce muscle artifact. The screener visually inspects the outer part of the ear canal to ensure the canal is clear of debris and places transducer. Both ears are screened during each session.

Evidence Highlights

  • Evidence indicates that early model AABR tests have a reported sensitivity of 80%, a specificity of 92%, and a low positive predicative value of 2.2%. Later model AABR technologies may have improved diagnostic accuracy (Merlin et al., 2007).

Expert Opinion

  • Certain parameters are fixed and should not be changed, because doing so may invalidate the scoring algorithm. Changes could affect gain or sensitivity of the amplifier, level of amplitude artifact rejection, filter bandwidth, acquisition window, and number of averaging sweeps (Elliott at al., 2002).
  • AABR is the only appropriate screening technology for the NICU. Infants in the NICU who do not pass the automated screening should be referred directly to an audiologist for rescreening or a comprehensive evaluation (when indicated; JCIH, 2007).
  • If a rescreen cannot be conducted within the first month of life, a direct referral for diagnostic evaluation (without rescreen) is appropriate (ASHA, 2013).
  • "If conventional ABR is used, the screening and interpretation should be done by an audiologist who adheres to strict operator and interpretation protocols" (ASHA, 2013, p. 10).

See the Screening: Physiologic section of the permanent childhood hearing loss evidence map for pertinent scientific evidence, expert opinion, and client/caregiver perspective.

Otoacoustic Emissions (OAE)

OAEs—either transient-evoked OAEs (TEOAEs) or distortion product OAEs (DPOAEs)—are measured using a sensitive probe microphone inserted into the infant's ear canal. OAEs are a direct measure of outer hair cell and cochlear function in response to acoustic stimulation and yield an indirect estimate of peripheral hearing sensitivity. OAEs are not sensitive to disorders central to the outer hair cells, such as auditory neuropathy—a neural hearing loss that leaves cochlear (outer hair cell) function intact and is more prevalent in the NICU population than in the WIN population (D'Agostino & Austin, 2004). OAEs will be absent when there is outer or middle ear dysfunction or blockage.

Stimuli

TEOAEs use a high-level click, approximately 80 dB pSPL, and a subtraction (sometimes referred to as non-linear) paradigm to reduce stimulus artifact. DPOAEs use mid-level stimuli (f1 primary = 65 dB SPL and f2 primary = 55 dB SPL).

Response Criteria

Many manufacturers program response criteria into the unit. At least three test frequencies—of 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hz—are evaluated during the screening. Usually, signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of at least 6 dB are used; however, some manufacturers will set their own SNRs. DPOAE SNRs vary depending on whether mean SNR is calculated or mean plus one or two standard deviations of noise. In addition, a minimum absolute DPOAE level of -5 dB SPL is imposed.

Procedures

The infant should be asleep or resting quietly for the test and positioned to reduce muscle artifact. A snug probe fit is essential for valid and reliable recordings. Ears should be screened one at a time, with the infant placed on his/her side and the ear being screened facing up. The screener visually inspects the outer part of the ear canal to ensure that the canal is patent and clear of debris. Prior to insertion of the probe, a gentle massage of the area below the tragus helps to open collapsed canal or dislodge debris that may be blocking the canal.

In OAE screenings, the stimulus level is calibrated in each ear according to the manufacturer's specifications. After stimulus level requirements have been met, OAEs are collected to meet stopping criteria. If OAEs do not appear to be present, the probe is taken out and inspected to determine if the probe is blocked with cerumen or vernix. A blocked probe should be cleaned and reinserted and the screening repeated.

Evidence Highlights

  • Evidence indicates that ambient noise can affect the accuracy of TEOAE testing. In quiet environments, TEOAEs have been noted to have sensitivity up to 100% and a specificity of 92%. The positive predicative value of TEOAEs to diagnose permanent childhood hearing loss is low (1.5%) possibly due to transient losses and the low prevalence of hearing loss (Merlin et al., 2007)

Expert Opinion

  • "Because OAEs are sensitive to hearing loss at 4000 Hz, this frequency should always be included in pass criteria" (ASHA, 2013, p. 13).

See the Screening: Physiologic section of the permanent childhood hearing loss evidence map for pertinent scientific evidence, expert opinion, and client/caregiver perspective.

Protocols

Screening protocols can be broadly classified into four different categories:

The choice of protocol for a newborn hearing screening program is based on the specific needs and requirements of the hospital and the population being screened (i.e., WIN or NICU). See a chart summarizing the protocols.

Evidence Highlights

  • Evidence indicates that false positive rates of either TEOAEs or AABR may be minimized with the introduction of a rescreen prior to diagnostic testing. "This may, however, result in unnecessary caregiver anxiety and added costs and delays in rehabilitation" (Merlin et al., 2007, p. ix).

Expert Opinion

  • Separate protocols should be established for the NICU and WIN. Infants admitted to the NICU for more than 5 days should be screened using ABR in order to not miss auditory neuropathy (JCIH (2007).
  • Infants in the NICU who do not pass AABR screening should be referred directly to an audiologist for rescreening and, when indicated, for a comprehensive evaluation including ABR (JCIH, 2007).
  • A repeat hearing screening should be conducted for all readmissions in the first month of life for all infants (NICU or WIN), when there are conditions associated with potential hearing loss (JCIH, 2007).

See the Screening: Physiologic section of the permanent childhood hearing loss evidence map for pertinent scientific evidence, expert opinion, and client/caregiver perspective.

Screening with ABR Only

ABR can be used in both the NICU and WIN. The rationale for an "ABR-only" protocol is that both neural and cochlear hearing losses will be detected using one type of technology. ABR screening is recommended by the JCIH (2007) for newborns cared for in the NICU for more than 5 days because they are at greater risk for neural hearing loss.

See ABR-only protocol flow charts. Flow charts are presented for infants cared for in the NICU and WIN [PDF].

Factors To Consider

Screening With OAEs Only

Otoacoustic emissions—either transient-evoked OAEs (TEOAEs) or distortion product OAEs (DPOAEs)—are recommended for use in WINs. Because OAEs are sensitive to outer ear debris and middle ear fluid that may be present at birth, most OAE screening protocols involve an outpatient rescreening of those newborns who fail the screening at hospital discharge. See an OAE-only protocol flow chart [PDF].

Factors To Consider

Two-Tier Screening: OAE Followed by ABR When the OAE is Not Passed

To provide options for newborn hearing screening and to reduce overall program costs, a two-tier screening approach can be used. In this approach, OAE screening is completed on both ears, first with an ABR done only for those newborns who do not pass the OAE screen. Each ear must pass the OAE screen to be considered a "pass." If the OAE screen is failed in one or both ears, an ABR screening test is performed. If the infant passes the ABR, the baby has "passed" the hearing screening. If one or both ears do not pass the ABR, the infant is referred for outpatient diagnostic testing. See a two-tier screening protocol flow chart [PDF].

The rationale behind a two-tier approach is that OAEs have lower disposables cost and are faster to perform compared with ABR; however, OAEs have a higher fail rate than ABR. Conducting an OAE screen first reduces the number of newborns who must go on to have an ABR screen.

Factors To Consider

Two Technology Screening: Both Auditory Brainstem and OAE

In a two-technology protocol, newborns must pass both an OAE screening and an ABR screening. Both of a newborn's ears are tested with ABR and OAEs, and each ear must pass both tests to be considered a "pass." Although pass/refer rates are available for this protocol in the NICU (Berg, Spitzer, Towers, Bartosiewicz, & Diamond, 2005) and WIN (Berg, Prieve, Serpanos, & Wheaton, 2011), no sensitivity or specificity data are available.

If a newborn fails screening for one or both technologies, he/she can be rescreened with that technology (technologies) one time only: either before hospital discharge or in an outpatient setting. If the newborn fails one or both of the second screenings in one or both ears, the newborn is referred for outpatient diagnostic testing. See a two-technology protocol flow chart [PDF].

Factors To Consider

Expert Opinion

  • In the WIN, infants who fail OAE screening but pass an AABR screening can be considered to have passed the screening. Conversely, infants who do not pass AABR should not be rescreened and passed based on the results of the OAE screening, because this profile is presumed to indicate that the infant is at risk for auditory neuropathy (JCIH, 2007).

See the Screening: Physiologic section of the PCHL evidence map for pertinent scientific evidence, expert opinion, and client/caregiver perspective.

Detection of Late-Onset Hearing Loss

The onset of hearing loss can occur at any time in a child's life. Developmental milestones, hearing skills, and speech and language milestones should be monitored in all children consistent with the Bright Futures/American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) schedule. In addition, not all risk indicators for hearing loss will be identified at the time a newborn is 1 month of age, when the newborn hearing process typically ends. Children who pass newborn hearing screening but have risk indicators for hearing loss require ongoing monitoring and surveillance. If parents have concerns regarding their child's speech and language development, the child should be referred for audiologic testing and speech and language evaluation by a speech-language pathologist (SLP).

Evidence Highlights

  • Evidence indicates that cytomegalovirus (CMV), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), congenital diaphragmatic hernia, and persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN) are strongly associated with hearing loss. Other risk factors—such as low birth weight, preauricular skin tags and ear pits, and neonatal toxoplasmosis—had limited or no association with hearing loss (Beswick, Driscoll, & Kei, 2012).

Expert Opinion

  • Children who have previously passed a newborn hearing screening but who have risk indicators for hearing loss should be referred for an audiologic evaluation between 24 and 30 months of age. Infants having risk factors associated with a high prevalence of late-onset hearing loss, such as CMV and ECMO, should have audiologic testing on a more frequent basis. (JCIH, 2007).

See the Screening: Physiologic section of the permanent childhood hearing loss evidence map for pertinent scientific evidence, expert opinion, and client/caregiver perspective.

Documentation and Dissemination

Newborn hearing screening documentation requirements are based on hospital and state mandates or protocols and can include recording of screening results into the medical record, electronic health record, birth certificate, discharge summary, or state EHDI data-system. In addition, screening results must be provided to the family and the newborn's physician. Patient records should be in full compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA, 1996).

Documentation typically includes

Collecting parental and pediatrician contact information is critical, especially for those newborns who do not pass the screen, to prevent loss to follow-up. Some states stipulate the information that needs to be reported to the appropriate governing body (e.g., state EHDI program) to effectively track newborns who are screened. See ASHA's state-by-state pages for a summary of requirements.

Expert Opinion

  • To monitor the quality of newborn hearing screening programs, key data should be collected—such as the number of newborns screened on hospital admission, number of newborns confirmed with hearing loss before 3 months of age, number of infants enrolled in early intervention by 6 months, number of children with nonsyndromic hearing loss who have adequate language and communication skills by school age, and number of children referred for cochlear implants (Trinidad-Ramos, de Aguilar, Juadenes-Casaubon, Nunez-Batalla, & Sequi-Canet, 2010).
  • "Should an infant not pass the hearing screening, the baby's physician needs to be informed immediately to ensure timely follow-up" (ASHA, 2013, p. 21).

See the Screening: Risk Factors/Surveillance section of the permanent childhood hearing loss evidence map for pertinent scientific evidence, expert opinion, and client/caregiver perspective.

Counseling and Education

Parent/Caregiver Education

Parent and caregiver education regarding newborn hearing screening begins before an infant is screened. If information about the screening process is provided only after a mother is admitted to the hospital to deliver her child, she may not have the level of concentration needed to consider the information being presented. Educational materials can be included in patient education packets, as part of hospital prenatal education programs, and in public health clinic outreach programs. Materials are to be written at a 4th- to 5th-grade literacy level and available in the preferred language of the family. Important information should also be conveyed orally in the parents' preferred language.

Education materials typically include information on

Communicating Screening Results

Where possible, audiologists are the professionals to communicate to the family when an infant has not passed a hearing screening. In settings in which an audiologist is not available to convey results, audiologists ensure that others (e.g., nurses, technicians, physicians) provide screening outcomes in a sensitive and considerate manner.

When communicating screening results consider

If an infant is referred for further testing, the audiologist provides the information in such a way that the family feels supported, yet clearly understands the importance of following up with further audiologic testing. If follow-up is needed, families should receive

Families of newborns who pass the hearing screening should be counseled about the need for ongoing surveillance and periodic monitoring.

Expert Opinion

  • Screening results should be conveyed to families as soon as possible. If follow-up is needed, information regarding the importance of prompt follow-up should be shared and an appointment for follow-up testing should be offered at discharge (JCIH, 2007).

See the Screening: Family Counseling section of the permanent childhood hearing loss evidence map for pertinent scientific evidence, expert opinion, and client/caregiver perspective.

Lost to Follow-Up/Lost to Documentation

In 2011, 34.9% of the infants who did not pass their final newborn hearing screen did not complete follow-up and were categorized as lost to follow-up (LTF)/lost to documentation (LTD; CDC, 2013).

In general, a baby who did not receive or complete the recommended diagnostic or intervention process is designated as lost to follow-up (LTF). However, there is great variation in how this term is defined from site to site and on state and national levels.

Lost to documentation (LTD) is becoming accepted as a term distinct from LTF and includes those infants who did not pass their hearing screening and whose diagnostic or intervention status has not been reported to the EHDI program; thus, their status remains unknown to the EHDI program, despite the fact that they may have received services. There are multiple points in the EHDI process at which a child might become LTD (e.g., following screening, following diagnosis, following referral to intervention).

Combining the designations LTF and LTD under the broad heading of loss to system (LTS) has been suggested as a viable option to reduce the confusion and variability in capturing this data set within and across EHDI systems and to increase the effectiveness of follow-up strategies (Beauchaine & Hoffman, 2008).

Populations at particular risk for LTF include home births, border babies (babies who live in one state but are born in another), and babies born in one hospital and transferred to another.

The National Initiative for Children's Healthcare Quality (NICHQ) identified several change strategies to decrease loss to follow up for infants who do not pass screening, including

(Russ, Hanna, DesGeorges, & Forsman, 2010)

Reducing loss to follow-up will require the involvement of numerous groups and individuals, including, but not limited to, parents and family members, hospital personnel, physicians, audiologists, SLPs, early interventionists, and state and territory departments of health.

System Issues

Suggestions for improving loss to system include

Program Evaluation and Quality Assurance

Various quality indicators and benchmarks can be used to evaluate quality assurance and performance relative to screening and diagnosis.

(JCIH, 2007)

Other quality assurance indicators include the

In addition to program evaluations, states can also evaluate their programs as they report the statewide findings to the CDC. CDC data collection includes the number of

Expert Opinion

  • All screeners should be trained in the use of screening technology and the facility's screening protocol; be competent to perform the screening; adhere to standard precautions and patient confidentiality standards; and report the screening results according to hospital and state EHDI requirements (ASHA, 2013).
  • Ongoing monitoring is a key component of high-quality and cost-efficient programs. Therefore, "each program should develop its own set of goals and use indicators representing a range of variables that indicate quality" (ASHA, 2013, p. 21).

See the Screening: General section of the permanent childhood hearing loss evidence map for pertinent scientific evidence, expert opinion, and client/caregiver perspective.

Laws & Regulations

Privacy regulations, including Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), Part C Privacy Regulations (IDEA), and state privacy reporting laws may adversely affect the sharing of information among service providers. However, there has been some misunderstanding regarding HIPAA's and FERPA's influence on the disclosure of information from screening programs to primary referral sources. Because disclosure is mandated by law (i.e., IDEA 2004) and the information is to be shared for public health purposes, written authorization for referrals to Part C may not be required (Houston, Behl, & White, 2008; Surprenant, 2006). Furthermore, signed consent is not needed (under FERPA) to disclose general contact information, enrollment status, and attendance of children served (Houston, Behl, & White, 2008). However, Part C has more privacy protections than FERPA and HIPAA. Signed consent is needed for Part C to share any personal information with nonparticipating providers (i.e., outside of the Part C system), but it is not needed for Part C to share information with participating providers. State laws can require more privacy protections, but not less. NICHQ has recommended that any required consent for release of information be obtained at first contact with early intervention so that information can be entered into an EHDI database (HRSA, 2009). See the Impact of Privacy Regulations.

All 50 states and the District of Columbia have EHDI laws or voluntary compliance programs that screen hearing.

Under HIPAA, hospitals and other providers who conduct infant hearing screening may share results with the state EHDI program, physicians, and audiology diagnostic centers without signed consent for the purpose of facilitating diagnosis and follow-up. Even so, some states require written consent for referrals from the hospital screening in order to facilitate referrals and expedite the process. Regardless of whether or not a consent form is required, a parent's signature can be used to document that the family has been informed of the screening results and next steps. Audiologists are responsible for understanding how privacy laws are interpreted in their specific states or programs. See frequently asked questions regarding HIPAA.

Reimbursement and Program Funding

Newborn screening funding varies from state to state, with states procuring funds from fees, Medicaid, the Title V Maternal and Child Health Block Grant program, and state general revenues (Johnson, Lloyd-Puryear, Mann, Ramos, & Therrell, 2006). The trend is to identify funding sources other than grants to ensure program continuity should grant support become unavailable. Costs associated with newborn hearing screening include those associated with the tests, such as equipment, disposables, and staff times, as well as program management costs, including data entry, data analysis, follow-up activities, and outcomes monitoring.

EPSDT

Through the Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) program, a set of services and benefits are mandated for all individuals under age 21 years who are enrolled in Medicaid. Federal rules encourage partnerships between state Medicaid and Title V agencies to ensure better access to and receipt of the full range of screening, diagnostic, and treatment services. EPSDT funds are an appropriate reimbursement source for screening and diagnostic services.

CPT Codes

There are a number of codes that can be used to describe early hearing detection testing to a payer. The procedure codes for conducting OAE or ABR hearing screenings are

92586, Auditory evoked potentials for evoked response audiometry and/or testing of the central nervous system, limited;

92558, Evoked otoacoustic emissions, screening (qualitative measurement of distortion product or transient evoked otoacoustic emissions), automated analysis.

For more information on the appropriate use of these OAE codes, see CPT coding for otoacoustic emissions.

Resources

ASHA Resources

ASHA Audiology Information Series: Early Hearing Detection and Intervention for Newborns and Infants (EHDI) [PDF]

ASHA's Consumer Page: Hearing Screening and Testing

ASHA's EHDI Action Center

ASHA's Expert Panel Recommendations on Newborn Hearing Screening

EHDI Phase II State Model Legislation [PDF]

Model Universal Newborn/Infant Hearing Screening, Tracking, and Intervention Bill

State Hearing Screening Requirements [PDF]

Other Resources

Boys Town National Research Hospital: My Baby's Hearing

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Hearing Loss in Children

Health Resources and Services Administration: Enhancing Communication: Improving Care for Infants With Hearing Loss

National Initiative for Children's Healthcare Quality: Newborn Hearing Screening Toolkit

U.S. Preventative Services Task Force: Universal Screening for Hearing Loss in Newborns

Related Organizations

Joint Committee on Infant Hearing

National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management

References

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2004). Scope of practice in audiology [Scope of practice]. Available from www.asha.org/policy.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2010).  Code of ethics [Ethics].  Available from www.asha.org/policy.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2013). Expert panel recommendations on newborn hearing screening. Available from insert URL when available.

Beauchaine, K., & Hoffman, J. (2008). Adding pediatrics to your audiology practice [Web/telephone seminar]. ASHA Professional Development program available through July 24, 2009, from www.asha.org.

Berg, A. L., Prieve, B. A., Serpanos, Y. C., & Wheaton, M. A. (2011). Hearing screening in a well-infant nursery: Profile of automated ABR-fail/OAE-pass. Pediatrics, 27(2), 269-275.

Berg, A. L, Spitzer, J. B., Towers, H. M., Bartosiewicz, C., & Diamond, B. E. (2005). Newborn hearing screening in the NICU: Profile of failed auditory brainstem response/passed otoacoustic emission. Pediatrics, 116(4), 933-938.

Berge, P.H. (1992). Setting limits on involuntary HIV antibody testing under Rule 35 and state independent medical examination statutes. Florida Law Review, 44 (4), 767-805.

Beswick, R., Driscoll, C., & Kei, J. (2012). Monitoring for postnatal hearing loss using risk factors: A systematic literature review. Ear and Hearing, 33, 746-756.

Bolyard, E. A., Tablan, O. C., Williams, W. W., Pearson, M. L., Shapiro, C. N., & Deithman, S. D. (1998). Guideline for infection control in health care personnel. American Journal of Infection Control, 26(3), 289-354.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). Guide to infection prevention in outpatient settings: Minimum expectations for safe care. Retrieved on April 15, 2013, from cdc.gov/hai/pdfs/guidelines/ambulatory-care-04-2011.pdf.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). Summary of 2011 national EHDI data. Retrieved from cdc.gov/ncbddd/ehdi/data.htm.

Clayton, E. W. (1992). Issues in state newborn screening programs. Pediatrics, 90(4), 641-646.

D'Agostino, J. A., & Austin, L. (2004). Auditory neuropathy: A potentially under-recognized neonatal intensive care unit sequela. Advanced Neonatal Care, 4, 344-353.

Fleischman, A. R., Post, L. F., & Dubler, N. N. (1994). Mandatory newborn screening for human immunodeficiency virus. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 71(1), 4-17.

Gravel, J. S., White, K. R., Johnson, J. L., Widen, J. E., Vohr, B. R., James, M., … Meyer, S. (2005). A multisite study to examine the efficacy of the otoacoustic emission/automated auditory brainstem response newborn hearing screening protocol: Recommendations for policy, practice, and research. American Journal of Audiology, 14(2), S217-S228.

Harlor, Jr., A. D. B., & Bower, C. (2009). Hearing assessment in infants and children: Recommendations beyond neonatal screening. Pediatrics, 124(4), 1252-1263.

Houston, K. T., Behl, D., & White, K. (2008). EHDI challenges and strategies in addressing privacy regulations. Presentation retrieved July 21, 2008, from infanthearing.org/meeting/ehdi2008/speakers.html.

Health Resources and Services Administration (2009). Enhancing communication: Improving care for infants with hearing loss. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Hussain, D. M, Gorga, M. P., Neely, S. T., Keefe, D. H., & Peters, J. (1998). Transient evoked otoacoustic emissions in patients with normal hearing and in patients with hearing loss. Ear and Hearing , 19(6), 434-449.

Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG). (2007). Neonatal screening for early detection of hearing impairment (Final Report S05-01). Cologne, Germany: Author.

Johnson, J., White, K., Widen, J., Gravel, J., James, M., Kennalley, T., … Holstrum, J. (2005). A multicenter evaluation of how many infants with permanent hearing loss pass a two-stage otoacoustic emissions/automated auditory brainstem response newborn hearing screening protocol. Pediatrics , 116(3), 663-672.

Johnson, K., Lloyd-Puryear, M. A., Mann, M. Y., Ramos, L. R., & Therrell, B. L. (2006). Financing state newborn screening programs: Sources and uses of funds. Pediatrics, 117, (5, Pt. 2), S270-S279.

Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. (2007). Year 2007 position statement: Principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs. Pediatrics, 120(4), 898-921.

Kirkim, G., Serbetcioglu, B., Erdag, T. K., & Ceryan, K. (2008). The frequency of auditory neuropathy detected by universal newborn hearing screening program. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 72(10), 1461-1469.

Merlin, T. Hedayati, H., Sullivan, T., Buckley, L., Newton, S., Hodgkinson, B., … Hiller, J. (2007). Universal neonatal hearing screening. Adelaide: Adelaide Health Technology Assessment (AHTA), MSAC reference 17 Assessment Report.

Nelson, H., Bougatsos, C., & Nygren, N. (2008). Universal newborn hearing screening: Systematic review to update the 2001 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation. Pediatrics, 122, e266-e276.

New York State Department of Health, Early Intervention Program. (2007). Clinical practice guideline: Report of the recommendations. Hearing loss,assessment and intervention for young children (age 0-3 years). New York State Department of Health Publication No. 4967. Albany, NY: Author.

Norton, S. J., Gorga, M. P., Widen, J. E., Folsom, R. C., Sininger, Y., Cone-Wesson, B., … Fletcher, K. (2000). Identification of neonatal hearing impairment: Evaluation of transient evoked otoacoustic emission, distortion product otoacoustic emission, and auditory brain stem response test performance. Ear and Hearing, 21(5), 508-528.

Russ, S. A., Hanna, D., DesGeorges, J., & Forsman, I. (2010). Improving follow-up to newborn hearing screening: A learning-collaborative experience. Pediatrics, 126, S59-S69.

Siegel, J. D., Rhinehart, E., Jackson, M., Chiarello, L., & Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. (2007). Guideline for isolation precautions: Preventing transmission of infectious agents in healthcare settings. Retrieved from cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/pdf/isolation2007.pdf.

Surprenant, K. (2006). How HIPAA and FERPA affect the provision of EHDI services [Webcast]. Retrieved July 24, 2008, from mchcom.com/archivedWebcastDetailNewInterface.asp?aeid=402.

Trinidad-Ramos G., de Aguilar V. A., Juadenes-Casaubon C., Nunez-Batalla, F., & Sequi-Canet, J. (2010). Early hearing detection and intervention: 2010 CODEPEH recommendation. Acta Otorrinolaringol Espana, 61(1), 69-77.

Turchetta R., Orlando, M. P., Cammeresi, M. G., Altissimi, G.,Celani, T.,Mazzei, F., … Cianfrone, G. (2012). Modifications of auditory brainstem responses (ABR): Observations in full-term and pre-term newborns. The Journal of Maternal- Fetal Neonatal Medicine, 8, 1342-1347.

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. (2008). Universal screening for hearing loss in newborns: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Pediatrics, 122, 143-148.

Vohr, B.R. , Oh, W., Stewart, E. J., Bentkover, J. D., Gabbard, S., Lemons, J., … Pye, R. (2001). Comparison of costs and referral rates of 3 universal newborn hearing screening protocols. Journal of Pediatrics, 139(2), 238-244.

Wolff, R., Hommerich, J., Riemsma, R., Antes, G., Lange, S., & Kleijnen, J. (2010). Hearing screening in newborns: Systematic review of accuracy, effectiveness, and effects of interventions after screening. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 95(2), 130-135.

Wood, S., Foley, R., Minchom, S., Parker, G., Robertson, H., & Sirimanna, T. (2010). Newborn hearing screening and assessment: Guidelines for surveillance and audiologic monitoring of infants and children following the newborn hearing screen. In G. Sutton (Ed.), England: National health service antenatal and newborn screening programmes.

Yoshinaga-Itano, C., DeConde Johnson, C., Carpenter, K., & Stredler Brown, A. (2008). Outcomes of children with mild bilateral hearing loss and unilateral hearing loss. Seminars in Hearing, 29(2), 96-211.