Let Them Hear Foundation

[vallee]

Here is an article about Let Them Hear from the Palo Alto Daily News. They won my appeal for bilateral CIs back in May.

Palo Alto Daily News

 

[Secretblend]

That is great news!. I always thought it was unfair that they wouldn't cover hearing aids or CI in this case. Can same be done for hearing aids? Why shouldn't the hearing aids be covered also?

 

[vallee]

That is great news!. I always thought it was unfair that they wouldn't cover hearing aids or CI in this case. Can same be done for hearing aids? Why shouldn't the hearing aids be covered also?

I agree! I had to wear my HA for 14 years because my insurance would not cover them. I wish they could do something about HA too!

 

[Angel]

That is great news!. I always thought it was unfair that they wouldn't cover hearing aids or CI in this case. Can same be done for hearing aids? Why shouldn't the hearing aids be covered also?

I agreed and good question too!

 

[jillio]

If you will check their funnding sources, I think the answer is obvious. LTHF is a cochlear based advocacy organization. The organization was founded by a physician (i.e. the medicalized model of deafness), and operates in conjuction with the California Ear Institute. In addition, they train physicians (many of them in other countries) in the techniques of cochlear implantation. They are funded by donations and patient fees. Quite obviously, patient fees in the field of cochlear implantation are much more lucrative than those fees charged for HA users.

And, before any one starts accusing me of being biased against CI and this organization, it has nothing to do with bias on my part. I am simply pointing out the truth behind the organizations efforts toward CI as opposed to HA. The motivation has nothing todo with altruism, but is based on financial gain.

 

[Secretblend]

If you will check their funnding sources, I think the answer is obvious. LTHF is a cochlear based advocacy organization. The organization was founded by a physician (i.e. the medicalized model of deafness), and operates in conjuction with the California Ear Institute. In addition, they train physicians (many of them in other countries) in the techniques of cochlear implantation. They are funded by donations and patient fees. Quite obviously, patient fees in the field of cochlear implantation are much more lucrative than those fees charged for HA users.

And, before any one starts accusing me of being biased against CI and this organization, it has nothing to do with bias on my part. I am simply pointing out the truth behind the organizations efforts toward CI as opposed to HA. The motivation has nothing todo with altruism, but is based on financial gain.

That does make alot of sense. CI does cost alot more money than HA therefore they would have more to gain by supporting them than the HA company would. However since they are making waves with CI, still would be nice to include HA. I think eventually they will have no choice but to include HA since CI are being done now.

 

[jillio]

That does make alot of sense. CI does cost alot more money than HA therefore they would have more to gain by supporting them than the HA company would. However since they are making waves with CI, still would be nice to include HA. I think eventually they will have no choice but to include HA since CI are being done now.

Perhaps, but since they are also training overseas doctors in cochlear techniques, I think they will continue to focus their efforts on insuring that more and more cochlear implants are done. If implants are not done, they loose their main source of finanacial support.

What we need is a deaf advocate that will advocate for HA and medical insurance coverage. CI advocates are reluctant to do that. In addition, CI is a surgical procedure, which give the legal team an advantage is challenging medical insurance's lack of coverage. HA does not require surgery, and therefore, it must be argued from a different position.

 

[john57]

Some of my friends are HOH advocates and have tried to promote insurance coverage for hearing aids for kids until the state governor veto the bill. There may be more success in other states. Some HMO's will provide some insurance benefit toward hearing aids. This process or fight is still ongoing.

 

[jillio]

Some of my friends are HOH advocates and have tried to promote insurance coverage for hearing aids for kids until the state governor veto the bill. There may be more success in other states. Some HMO's will provide some insurance benefit toward hearing aids. This process or fight is still ongoing.

Yes it is. Unfortunately, CI gets more notice in the press, as it is more sensational. The media sells newspapers when they print articles about a "group of wonderful hearing people that are providing so much to the poor little deaf child." That is why it is necessary to point out that these efforts are not being made altruistically on behalf of deaf children, but have, as their motivation, financial gain. Where are all of the people belonging to this organization when advocacy is needed for the deaf population still relying on HA because they don't qualify for CI? What legal battles are they fighting for them? How many deaf educators are they training overseas? I could go on and on.

Perhaps the hearing aid manufacturers need to send some lobbyists to your state's hearings.

 

[vallee]

If you will check their funnding sources, I think the answer is obvious. LTHF is a cochlear based advocacy organization. The organization was founded by a physician (i.e. the medicalized model of deafness), and operates in conjuction with the California Ear Institute. In addition, they train physicians (many of them in other countries) in the techniques of cochlear implantation. They are funded by donations and patient fees. Quite obviously, patient fees in the field of cochlear implantation are much more lucrative than those fees charged for HA users.

And, before any one starts accusing me of being biased against CI and this organization, it has nothing to do with bias on my part. I am simply pointing out the truth behind the organizations efforts toward CI as opposed to HA. The motivation has nothing todo with altruism, but is based on financial gain.

I am very thankful for what let them hear did for me. They did allow me to make my choice for Cochlear Implants not based on my ability to pay but on my insurances company's responsibilities to pay.

I don't care about their gain, I received more gain than I can ever repay. they handled all the appeals for me free of charge. They treated me with respect and listened to me. I can never say a cross word about this organization, because there is not one to say.

 

[jillio]

I am very thankful for what let them hear did for me. They did allow me to make my choice for Cochlear Implants not based on my ability to pay but on my insurances company's responsibilities to pay.

I don't care about their gain, I received more gain than I can ever repay. they handled all the appeals for me free of charge. They treated me with respect and listened to me. I can never say a cross word about this organization, because there is not one to say.

Like I said, I'm only pointing out that this newpaper article did not tell the whole story. If people are going to be well informed regarding the issues, they must have all of the information that allows them to make a reasonable assessment. And, had they not been making a financial profit off of CI, then they would not have existed to be there to assist you. So, the fact that they exist as an organization that profits greatly from the more CIs that are done, it is pertinent to note that they are advocating not so much for the individuall CI implantee, but for the continued financial success of themselves.

Organizations such as Let Them Hear, quite frankly profit from advocating for early newborn screening because, they also advocate of early implantation, i.e. the more infants identified at birth, the more confused parents that will buy into the CI hype and insist that their infants be implanted. Advocacy in insurance cases sets precedence that they can rely on when advocating for those cases done by their own clinic, thus guaranteeing that they get paid for the surgeries that they perform. Increased numbers of CI being done in the U.S. creates demand for training in CI surgical techniques in other countries.....training which LTH provides.

The article attempted to portray this organization as something they most certainly are not....altruistic. I'm glad that they were able to help you, vallee, and that you are satisfied with their efforts. But the fact of the matter is, had their not been financial incentive for them, they would not have been there to assist you. To believe that you were helped simply because they are caring and sensitive people is naive.

 

[Cloggy]

If you will check their funnding sources, I think the answer is obvious. LTHF is a cochlear based advocacy organization. The organization was founded by a physician (i.e. the medicalized model of deafness), and operates in conjuction with the California Ear Institute. In addition, they train physicians (many of them in other countries) in the techniques of cochlear implantation. They are funded by donations and patient fees. Quite obviously, patient fees in the field of cochlear implantation are much more lucrative than those fees charged for HA users.

And, before any one starts accusing me of being biased against CI and this organization, it has nothing to do with bias on my part. I am simply pointing out the truth behind the organizations efforts toward CI as opposed to HA. The motivation has nothing todo with altruism, but is based on financial gain.

Some see financial gain, some see people that want help being helped. Different perspective.

But to come to the conclusion that "I am simply pointing out the truth behind the organizations efforts toward CI as opposed to HA. The motivation has nothing todo with altruism, but is based on financial gain." you must have some idea on how much money they make on fighting for people to get the CI?

How much money is being made?

Excellent intiative of that physician, and it helped a lot of people!

 

[Cloggy]

............
What we need is a deaf advocate that will advocate for HA and medical insurance coverage.........

What good is a HA going to do. When a HA doesn't help any more, THEN, CI is an option.
Your option, when a HA does not help to hear, is to live without sound.
That's not a option. An option would be to live without sound, or to live with sound

 

[Tousi]

I think the legal difference between the two (HA & CI); one being durable medical equipment (the ci) and the other not (the ha) is the reason why almost all insurance companies do not pay for HAs. I am lucky in that Kaiser whose medical coverage I have allows for $1,000.00 every three years towards acqusition of a new HA.

 

[jillio]

Some see financial gain, some see people that want help being helped. Different perspective.

But to come to the conclusion that "I am simply pointing out the truth behind the organizations efforts toward CI as opposed to HA. The motivation has nothing todo with altruism, but is based on financial gain." you must have some idea on how much money they make on fighting for people to get the CI?

How much money is being made?

Excellent intiative of that physician, and it helped a lot of people!

Fighting for people to get the CI, as you put it, is no doubt not where the profit comes in. Unless, of course they are patients of the clinic, at which time, fighting the insurance companies insures that the clinic is paid. But, if you will read my further posts, you find an more in-depth explanation of how it is all connected to financial profit.

And, yes, people that want help are being helped. But not as a result of altruism, as the implication was in the article. If there was not a profit to be made as the result of the help proffered, it certainly would not be made available. It's called advertising in the retail market. Example: a big toy store make a donation to a charitable organization that distributes toys to underpriviledged children at Christmas time. The store recieves a notice in the local news, everyone says. "Aww... aren't they generous?" But the reason they do it is because due to press about their donation, and people's reactions to such, the name of the store is now the first one that people think of when shopping for toys. So, a donation of $500.00 worth of toys results in retail sales based on that donation, of many thousands of dollars in profit from sales. Simple business principle, combined with a simple psychological phenomenon.

 

[Cloggy]

Like I said, I'm only pointing out that this newpaper article did not tell the whole story. If people are going to be well informed regarding the issues, they must have all of the information that allows them to make a reasonable assessment. And, had they not been making a financial profit off of CI, then they would not have existed to be there to assist you. So, the fact that they exist as an organization that profits greatly from the more CIs that are done, it is pertinent to note that they are advocating not so much for the individuall CI implantee, but for the continued financial success of themselves.

Organizations such as Let Them Hear, quite frankly profit from advocating for early newborn screening because, they also advocate of early implantation, i.e. the more infants identified at birth, the more confused parents that will buy into the CI hype and insist that their infants be implanted. Advocacy in insurance cases sets precedence that they can rely on when advocating for those cases done by their own clinic, thus guaranteeing that they get paid for the surgeries that they perform. Increased numbers of CI being done in the U.S. creates demand for training in CI surgical techniques in other countries.....training which LTH provides.

The article attempted to portray this organization as something they most certainly are not....altruistic. I'm glad that they were able to help you, vallee, and that you are satisfied with their efforts. But the fact of the matter is, had their not been financial incentive for them, they would not have been there to assist you. To believe that you were helped simply because they are caring and sensitive people is naive.

Jillio, you keep saying "And, had they not been making a financial profit off of CI, then they would not have existed to be there to assist you."....
How much money is being made?

Jillio,you say "But the fact of the matter is, had their not been financial incentive for them, they would not have been there to assist you. To believe that you were helped simply because they are caring and sensitive people is naive."
What's wrong with an organisation helping people? That organisation has it expenses, so it's only fair that they have a source of income...
With the expenses covered, and people helped for free, they are very much allowed to make a profit.
And altruistic or not.... it's great that they exist...

 

[jillio]

I think the legal difference between the two (HA & CI); one being durable medical equipment (the ci) and the other not (the ha) is the reason why almost all insurance companies do not pay for HAs. I am lucky in that Kaiser whose medical coverage I have allows for $1,000.00 every three years towards acqusition of a new HA.

Exactly...which is why I said medical cvoverage for the HA must be argued from a different platform than the CI.

 

[jillio]

What good is a HA going to do. When a HA doesn't help any more, THEN, CI is an option.
Your option, when a HA does not help to hear, is to live without sound.
That's not a option. An option would be to live without sound, or to live with sound

And those who are reliant on HA for sound perception are receiving the same benefit from HA that implant recipients receive from their CI....sound perception. As both remediate a condition known as deafness, then both are medical solutions to treatment of that deafness. If one is going to take the medical perspective, then one must apply it across the board, not simply when it is the most profitable.

 

[jillio]

Jillio, you keep saying "And, had they not been making a financial profit off of CI, then they would not have existed to be there to assist you."....
How much money is being made?

Jillio,you say "But the fact of the matter is, had their not been financial incentive for them, they would not have been there to assist you. To believe that you were helped simply because they are caring and sensitive people is naive."
What's wrong with an organisation helping people? That organisation has it expenses, so it's only fair that they have a source of income...
With the expenses covered, and people helped for free, they are very much allowed to make a profit.
And altruistic or not.... it's great that they exist...

I did not say there was anything wrong with them helping, cloggy. What I am saying is that of course they help. They have financial motivation for doing so. To portray their motive as altuism is innacurrate and naive. That's all. If we are going to talk about all of the help they provide, then lets do it from a realistic and honest standpoint. I have not made an assessment of the "right or wrong" perspective of LTH's actions. The only assessment of that nature that I have made was in regard to the aticle's tone that portrayed them in an altuisic light. Of course, LTH no doubt is approving of this article....it is very good advertisisng, and we all know the purpose of advertising. Ii amsimply pointing out the acuality of the situation, not making a judgement one way or the other.

 

[Cloggy]

I did not say there was anything wrong with them helping, cloggy. What I am saying is that of course they help. They have financial motivation for doing so. To portray their motive as altuism is innacurrate and naive. Taht's all. If we are going to talk about all of the help they provide, then lets do it froma realistic and honest standpoint.

Sounds to me you are blaming them for making a profit. And you don't even know how much profit is being made.
For an organisation to help people as good as they can, there's no need in my opinion to show a financial overview, and if good-looking offices, good salaries etc mean that more people will donate, so more people can be helped, that's absolutely OK for me.

You are just looking for ways to discredit an organisation that is actually helping.

If you want to take on an organisation that is doing everything it can for financial reasons, have a look at the USA government!
They are definitely not in the business to help the American People....
How much are they spending on a war just to secure oil. How much money are they spending on education for the deaf. HOw much would 1 day or war help the deaf people of America?