Success for deaf community

rockdrummer said:
I'm sorry Buffalo, while I respect your opinions I simply don't share your views on this. Trust me when I tell you that Insurance companies will ALWAYS take the least expensive route. A CI is NOT the least expensive route. It is why in my opinion there needs to be a law that will make them pay for it for those that choose to go down that route.
Click to expand...

Then how come my insurance would fully pay for a CI surgery but not for new HAs or repairing my HAs?
 
Daredevel7 said:
So you prefer to go for a bill that would require insurance to pay for assistive devices requested by ALL deaf people?

That would be nice..... but realistically that's just insanely expensive. At least the children are not being screwed over.
Click to expand...

That's why we need a revamp in the health care system.
 
shel90 said:
Then how come my insurance would fully pay for a CI surgery but not for new HAs or repairing my HAs?
Click to expand...
Really? I find that to be interesting. Who do you have your insurance through? I can check into it and find out exactly why that would be their position. You can PM me the company name if you don't care to post it in the thread.
 
shel90 said:
Then how come my insurance would fully pay for a CI surgery but not for new HAs or repairing my HAs?
Click to expand...

Because the CI manufacturers and the audis and the medical establishment take the position that the CI is more cost effective long term to society because it will reduce the need for other accommodations, and allow the CI user to function in the educational and work environment as a hearing person with no need for accommodation.

If you remember, we discussed this very thing a while back, and there were several links from the medical community posted that showed that was exactly what was being stated.

Obviously, though, that assumption has not played out, given the number of CI users that continue to require the same accommodations that HA users require, both in the educational arena and the work arena.
 
Well, it wouldn't be so unfathomable when come a time that stem cell or other biological means of treating/curing/restoring nerve deafness in babies/children be possible someday very soon. What then if a law requires that babies identified with hearing loss (e.g. nerve deafness or sensorineural hearing loss) be treated with, say, stem cell to restore a baby's hearing loss? Even though I suspect it wouldn't take much for hearing parents to go the biological route (rather than a law to force parents to treat their children's hearing loss) to have their baby's hearing loss restored. It would be in parents' view a much, much better option than having a cochlear implant operation.
 
kokonut said:
Well, it wouldn't be so unfathomable when come a time that stem cell or other biological means of treating/curing/restoring nerve deafness in babies/children be possible someday very soon. What then if a law requires that babies identified with hearing loss (e.g. nerve deafness or sensorineural hearing loss) be treated with, say, stem cell to restore a baby's hearing loss? Even though I suspect it wouldn't take much for hearing parents to go the biological route (rather than a law to force parents to treat their children's hearing loss) to have their baby's hearing loss restored. It would be in parents' view a much, much better option than having a cochlear implant operation.
Click to expand...

If one sees deafness from the medicial model point of view.
 
rockdrummer said:
Really? I find that to be interesting. Who do you have your insurance through? I can check into it and find out exactly why that would be their position. You can PM me the company name if you don't care to post it in the thread.
Click to expand...

I was told by my audi that my insurance would cover CI surgery 100% when I went in to get my HAs repaired. I asked her why were CIs paid for but not HAs and she said CIs help deaf people to become assimilated in society and be normal. REally got me fuming cuz again with that view that deaf people cant function in society unless they act like hearing people.
 
shel90 said:
I was told by my audi that my insurance would cover CI surgery 100% when I went in to get my HAs repaired. I asked her why were CIs paid for but not HAs and she said CIs help deaf people to become assimilated in society and be normal. REally got me fuming cuz again with that view that deaf people cant function in society unless they act like hearing people.
Click to expand...

They told me 100% too. But 100% is actually not 100%. It goes more like this "100% for the OPERATION, but not quite 100% the hospital costs, device costs,*insert hidden costs here* etc." I am willing to bet that you still have to shell out a few grand. I know I did.
 
Daredevel7 said:
They told me 100% too. But 100% is actually not 100%. It goes more like this "100% for the OPERATION, but not quite 100% the hospital costs, device costs,*insert hidden costs here* etc." I am willing to bet that you still have to shell out a few grand. I know I did.
Click to expand...

Now, that u mentioned it, I will look closely into my plan.
 
Daredevel7 said:
They told me 100% too. But 100% is actually not 100%. It goes more like this "100% for the OPERATION, but not quite 100% the hospital costs, device costs,*insert hidden costs here* etc." I am willing to bet that you still have to shell out a few grand. I know I did.
Click to expand...

100% usually means 100% of the insurance company's allowable, not 100% of the actual expenses.
 
jillio said:
100% usually means 100% of the insurance company's allowable, not 100% of the actual expenses.
Click to expand...

Yes. Even if the insurance states "Cochlear Implant surgery is covered 100% (subjected to the deductible)", people assume that surgery is all inclusive.. If only you could see my CI bill, it's divided by at least 10 different types of claims such as anaesthesia, hospital room, etc. They do NOT count towards the surgery itself. So the CI being "covered" isn't nice and pretty as one would think. Oh, and did I mention that I have really good insurance too?
 
Daredevel7 said:
Yes. Even if the insurance states "Cochlear Implant surgery is covered 100% (subjected to the deductible)", people assume that surgery is all inclusive.. If only you could see my CI bill, it's divided by at least 10 different types of claims such as anaesthesia, hospital room, etc. They do NOT count towards the surgery itself. So the CI being "covered" isn't nice and pretty as one would think. Oh, and did I mention that I have really good insurance too?
Click to expand...

Right. That's the way that insurance companies manipulate you into thinking you have better coverage than you do, too. For instance, if the physician charges 2500.00 for a given procedure, and the insurance company's allowable is 1500.00, and the insurance says they cover 80%, in actuality all they are covering is 80% of the 1500.00. That means the insurance will pay 1200.00, leaving an actual balance of 1300.00 on the patient account. If it is an HMO or a PPO, then the doctor usually is mandated to write the additional amount off, and he will charge it as a loss on his taxes. However, if it is traditional insurance, the doctor does not have to discount his fees, and the patient will end up paying more than the insurance company did, despite being told, "Oh, we pay 80% for that procedure."
 
rockdrummer said:
I'm sorry Buffalo, while I respect your opinions I simply don't share your views on this. Trust me when I tell you that Insurance companies will ALWAYS take the least expensive route. A CI is NOT the least expensive route. It is why in my opinion there needs to be a law that will make them pay for it for those that choose to go down that route.
Click to expand...

You didn't read Jamie Berke's article on her experience with the insurance and CI. Go back to post #89 and click on the link. She said that her insurance will pay for CI but not for HA. I know that it makes sense for the insurance to go for the least cost but not in the case of CI. Now do you see what I mean by hearing people having so much faith in CI???
 
I believe the adult person should have the choice and make their choice( No devices, HA's, or CI) and that the Insurance Companies should cover equally HA's or CI's
 
While I have to confirm this I would imagine that the cost associated with the insurance companies decision is a overall reduction to their bottom line. I'm sorry but I am cynical about any insurance. Since there may be more people with HA's the cost to the insurance companies might be higher than covering CI's. Remember not everyone is a candidate for a CI and also not everyone will want one. Does anyone have numbers on how many people in the US are using HA's vs. how many people are using CI's?
 
rockdrummer said:
While I have to confirm this I would imagine that the cost associated with the insurance companies decision is a overall reduction to their bottom line. I'm sorry but I am cynical about any insurance. Since there may be more people with HA's the cost to the insurance companies might be higher than covering CI's. Remember not everyone is a candidate for a CI and also not everyone will want one. Does anyone have numbers on how many people in the US are using HA's vs. how many people are using CI's?
Click to expand...

That's very true. Business is business. I'm very curious about the number of HA users and CI users.
 
I didn't find dates but here are some figures I was able to google up. Sorry for going off topic.

More than 20 million Americans have hearing problems of varying degrees. These problems become more common with age, affecting one in four over 65, according to the Better Hearing Institute, an information service in Annandale, Va. Sales Rise 6% a Year

No one keeps statistics on how many people wear hearing aids or on how many should. However, industry figures indicate that 1.2 million devices were sold in the United States last year and that the market is growing at about 6 percent a year.
Source
Click to expand...

How many people have cochlear implants? Today there are currently over 30,000 people worldwide with cochlear implants. Over 8,000 of those people are children. The choice to give children the opportunity to hear through the cochlear implant is increasing at an understandably remarkable rate. Today, while one out of ten profoundly deaf children enjoys the benefits of the cochlear implant, studies have projected those numbers to increase to one out of three in the next ten years.

Source
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top