Quote:
Originally Posted by Hear Again
When I asked about a CI (since he was also a CI surgeon), I was told that I had "a little too much" residual hearing since my aided speech discrimination at the time was 30-40%.
|
Yet this lady I know has a 40db sloping HL(NON progressive!) and 60% speech discrimination/perception with both HAs somehow got approved by insurance and her surgeon. She hears unaided much better than you used to hear aided with HAs before you got CIs!
Actually she didn't want CI and said her HAs were doing the job just fine. Her ENTs and audiologists kept recommending CI to her(probably so they can get a commission) and it sounds like she's being pressured into CI. The fact her insurance and surgeon somehow approved her made her think CI will be "the latest and greatest" and she thinks it will be better than HAs or her moderate sloping loss. I gotta be blunt and honest and say theres a very high chance she will be unhappy with CI and find it worse than HA and she will really miss hearing sounds unaided if she loses some/all residual hearing.
Quote:
|
As for loosening CI criteria, what's the difference? Research has proven that people with greater amounts of residual hearing benefit from a CI. Why do you have a problem with that? If they choose to receive a CI, how does that negatively affect you?
|
Still her hearing loss is NOT severe-profound! Nor is it progressive! If criteria has been loosened so much that moderate HL is getting CI, millions of people will try to get CI. How will insurance pay for all those people? They will go out of business! Also there will be a ton of unhappy CI users who hear much worse than they did with HAs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hear Again
Where do you get the idea that CIs result in higher health insurance premiums? The more people who receive CIs, the less health insurance will cost due to there no longer being a need for ENT services, hearing aid programming and hearing tests.
|
That lady getting CIs even told me that insurance has raised their premiums because they have loosened their criteria and they need everyone else to pay a higher monthly insurance cost to subsidize those who feel like getting CI. Those who don't want CIs will wisen up and switch to a cheaper insurance with strict CI criteria and save hundreds a month on their insurance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hear Again
CI candidates put a great deal of research into deciding to be implanted. Sooner or later, the reality of what it means to be a CI candidate (i.e. the strongest amplification no longer helps) hits home and they mourn the loss of their hearing.
|
That lady did do some research and decided not to get CI but changed her mind only because her insurance and surgeon somehow approved her. She has only moderate hearing loss and hears great with HAs. So now she thinks CI will somehow be better because her insurance and surgeon "said" so. How's that for lax standards and willy-nilly approval?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hear Again
If anyone opts for a CI because it's "the latest and greatest technology," they are a very small minority of CI candidates.
|
She happens to be in that (growing) minority.
__________________
My
reasons for choosing stem cells over CI are numerous. Many thousands have gotten stem cells for all conditions with 90% success rate. I have emailed/contacted stem cell centers, read articles, did my research and know the facts.
Chloe got such good results she can hear well without HAs! My hearing loss is the same in both ears. Recent audiogram: 125Hz=55db, 250Hz=70db, 500Hz=90db, 750Hz=110db, 1000Hz-8000Hz=NR at 110db. I discuss my deafness and stem cells in my
blog