Okay, I am confused!! I went for a

[lilraysofhope]

consultation for the BAHA ( since i have 90db loss in left ear and 50 db in the right) I don't really qualify since the "good ear" is still borderline. Anyway, I asked about a cochlear implant in my (dead ear) and the Dr said that the sound is much different than the way my better ear hears so he doesn't think it would be a good idea " your brain would have a hard time processing" Why is that?? I know there are people out there who have an implant in ONE ear! ANYONE???? He did suggest the BiCros, anyone else have experience with this???

I appreciate ANY input you may have!

 

[R2D2]

I disagree with your audie. The fact that you've had a relatively small hearing loss in the other ear for much of your life will actually go in your favour if you were ever to get a CI later on. The brain is very adapable with an ability to transfer previously learned tasks and many people who were previously hearing have adapted well to CIs - they are the ones with the best outcomes since the hearing neurons in their brains needed for interpretation of sound through a CI is typically well developed.

At 90db some of the more powerful hearing aids may still be of help to you. I would give those a trial if you can. If later on you find that nothing helps or if your loss increases then you might want to make an appointment with a CI centre where they have specialist audiologists for an evaluation if you want to explore that option further.

 

[vallee]

I don't know except it does not hurt to get a second opinion.

 

[LadySekhmet]

I don't know except it does not hurt to get a second opinion.

I absolutely agree. I felt uncomfortable with the first consultation with an audiologist. She said to me, "Oh you qualify for CI because you can speak well." That's WITHOUT even testing me. Then she tested me, and basically said, "Okay now you make an appointment with the surgeon then you're all set." She never gave me ANY information on CI, anything about the surgery itself, etc. So I sought out for 2nd opinion, and it couldn't go any better. My second audiologist does NOT sugar coat stuff. She tells it like it is. On my activation day, she literally said, "This is going to sound like crap."

Besides - I thought BAHA is primarily for middle ear problems, not inner ear problems. When you have very good inner ear, and you have all the functions of your cochlear working well, but the problem lie in the middle ear. That's what BAHA is for. Anyone - please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[sr171soars]

...

Besides - I thought BAHA is primarily for middle ear problems, not inner ear problems. When you have very good inner ear, and you have all the functions of your cochlear working well, but the problem lie in the middle ear. That's what BAHA is for. Anyone - please correct me if I'm wrong.

You are correct in your assessment.

 

[deafskeptic]

I absolutely agree. I felt uncomfortable with the first consultation with an audiologist. She said to me, "Oh you qualify for CI because you can speak well." That's WITHOUT even testing me. Then she tested me, and basically said, "Okay now you make an appointment with the surgeon then you're all set." She never gave me ANY information on CI, anything about the surgery itself, etc. So I sought out for 2nd opinion, and it couldn't go any better. My second audiologist does NOT sugar coat stuff. She tells it like it is. On my activation day, she literally said, "This is going to sound like crap."

Besides - I thought BAHA is primarily for middle ear problems, not inner ear problems. When you have very good inner ear, and you have all the functions of your cochlear working well, but the problem lie in the middle ear. That's what BAHA is for. Anyone - please correct me if I'm wrong.

Indeed. I'm glad you got a second onpion.

 

[jasin]

i've always been suspect of audiologist

I bet their saying that because of your insurance. I bet your insurance wont cover it unless you is extremly deaf, like no hearing of any kind, not just in the range of what is considered deaf.

Anyways, I've always been suspect of audiologist myself. Like, people go in and have their hearing tested and they stick the thing in your ear to measure conductivity and it measure fine, but then they do the actual test and you can hear only maybe 3 or 4 words and sounds of like 50. Most of the time they'll put you down on the paper in the hearing range regardless.

I think a lot of audiologist are just giving into the insurance companies. I guess its easier to put you down as hearing then to pay for a hearing aid or some kind of implant.


I bet if you had like donald trump money there would be no question about whether they can give you an implant or do the surgery. In reality, it always comes down to money and what you can pay for.

 

[LadySekhmet]

I bet their saying that because of your insurance. I bet your insurance wont cover it unless you is extremly deaf, like no hearing of any kind, not just in the range of what is considered deaf.

Anyways, I've always been suspect of audiologist myself. Like, people go in and have their hearing tested and they stick the thing in your ear to measure conductivity and it measure fine, but then they do the actual test and you can hear only maybe 3 or 4 words and sounds of like 50. Most of the time they'll put you down on the paper in the hearing range regardless.

I think a lot of audiologist are just giving into the insurance companies. I guess its easier to put you down as hearing then to pay for a hearing aid or some kind of implant.

I disagree with the first paragraph. Degrees of deafness has NOTHING to do with insurance coverage. I'm in severe-profound deaf range, and I got my CI 100% covered. That proves it wrong.

Why would Audiologists lie about a person's deafness. Conductivity measures the way your bones work, has nothing to do what how much you can hear. It's just checking to see if there's anything wrong with the middle bone. The actual test that you're talking about is the word discrimination tests. People without CIs will get only a small amount of words. There are a few that can hear pretty good enough to catch more than that. The CI boosts the sentence discrimination (and that really depends on training!).

Insurance companies (well, majority of them), will not pay for hearing aids because it's COSMETIC. It's dumb, I know. Many many deaf people go through that. There are a small amount of people that are lucky to get it through funds, schools, DVR, SSI, etc. Insurance companies will pay for the CI if the audiologist has discussed with the patients about the CI, and is a candidate. Yes, there's some CI users that had issues with insurance. Thankfully, I had no problem, and did not need permission from them. It was simple and easy for me. I wonder though, if it's different when children is involved. I wonder if Insurance companies give them a little bit of a harder time.

 

[LadySekhmet]

Forgot to add....the OP's question was why her audiologist say that the CI won't help her, and she wants BAHA. I think she just got confused between the two. She/he needs to get a second opinion.

Also to Lilraysofhope - I got my processor, and I can tell you that everything sounds "normal". I can hear a lot MORE sounds like the shh, chs, etc. To me, it sounds the same, but on a louder, and more clarity level. The doctor don't know what he's talking about "sounding different". It will sound different at first, but your lovely brain will adapt to it, and with good training, everything will sound normal...not Electronic.

 

[jasin]

I disagree with the first paragraph. Degrees of deafness has NOTHING to do with insurance coverage. I'm in severe-profound deaf range, and I got my CI 100% covered. That proves it wrong.

Why would Audiologists lie about a person's deafness. Conductivity measures the way your bones work, has nothing to do what how much you can hear. It's just checking to see if there's anything wrong with the middle bone. The actual test that you're talking about is the word discrimination tests. People without CIs will get only a small amount of words. There are a few that can hear pretty good enough to catch more than that. The CI boosts the sentence discrimination (and that really depends on training!).

Insurance companies (well, majority of them), will not pay for hearing aids because it's COSMETIC. It's dumb, I know. Many many deaf people go through that. There are a small amount of people that are lucky to get it through funds, schools, DVR, SSI, etc. Insurance companies will pay for the CI if the audiologist has discussed with the patients about the CI, and is a candidate. Yes, there's some CI users that had issues with insurance. Thankfully, I had no problem, and did not need permission from them. It was simple and easy for me. I wonder though, if it's different when children is involved. I wonder if Insurance companies give them a little bit of a harder time.

I disagree with you! Lot of deaf people cant get implants because its not within the scope of what their insurance covers. Hmos and goverment insurance is the worst. You'd be lucky to even get a hearing aid on that kind of insurance.

Dvr is a joke, the wait to get on dvr here is 3-5 years. NO kiding! Plus, dvr wants you to seek full time employment just to qualify. People on ssi wont be seeking full time employment unless they want their ssi gone.

 

[TheWGP]

Yes, there's some CI users that had issues with insurance. Thankfully, I had no problem, and did not need permission from them. It was simple and easy for me. I wonder though, if it's different when children is involved. I wonder if Insurance companies give them a little bit of a harder time.

Anecdotally, I'm told this has gotten MUCH easier over the years. I know in 1990, right after FDA approval, our insurance company tried to balk at paying for my implant. They eventually gave in, but only after a call from our local representative, who was involved in some type of legislation at the time aimed at making insurance companies not play games. Nowadays, most companies have dealt with both adult and child implant situations repeatedly, and have a fairly standard practice for them. Insurance coverage, IMO, should never be a limiting factor on what you feel you NEED - so it's great that this has become more streamlined.

 

[VamPyroX]

Have you tried getting a second opinion?

 

[skipper]

thank god CI is 100% covered here in Ontario.... by our government!

I have a question based on the original post....

the sound is much different than the way my better ear hears so he doesn't think it would be a good idea " your brain would have a hard time processing"

In my case... my "good" ear is my right one. I cna't tell you exactly, but I know in the word assessment, I got like 3 or 4 out of like 20 correct. My left *was* 0..... and now at the moment, due to a suddent recent drop, I can't even wear my hearign aid...

But anyway .... on to my question. I use my good ear for the phone, I turn my good ear towards conversations to hear better, etc. It's not much different than writing with right vs left..

After my CI assessment..... they suggested if I went ahead with it.... to do my left, since it was the worse of the 2.

How will my brain process that? When it "worked" it was kind of like a crutch..... much akin to one eye vs using both. It balanced me and helped me udnerstand betetr, as poor as it was. With my left ear hearing aid in all alone, I wouldn't have a prayer of talking to my own mother in close range and understanding her at all...

So.... with CI. Will I be able to use the phone? Will I "get used to" my good ear being in the left assuming the surgery goes well?

Sorry if this is considered a thread hijack, it seemed to fit in here...

 

[lilraysofhope]

Thank you all for your feedback!

I am going to seek a second opinion. I understand not qualifying for the BAHA. However, I don't think it makes sense that "my brain would be confused" if I had a CI in profound/severe ear while I wore a HA in my moderate ear KWIM??
Also, I know my insurance does NOT cover HA of ANY kind. Therefore, CI would not be covered. SO silly, yes I WANT to wear HA !!!!!

 

[LadySekhmet]

I am going to seek a second opinion. I understand not qualifying for the BAHA. However, I don't think it makes sense that "my brain would be confused" if I had a CI in profound/severe ear while I wore a HA in my moderate ear KWIM??
Also, I know my insurance does NOT cover HA of ANY kind. Therefore, CI would not be covered. SO silly, yes I WANT to wear HA !!!!!

NO insurance will cover for Hearing aids. I would actually be very very surprised if one does. Just because the insurance company will not pay for HA does NOT mean CI will not be covered. CI involves surgery, and I would be surprised if someone can afford to pay $60,000 to $125,000 for surgery out of their own pockets. That's what insurance is for.

Do you have any problems with your inner ear? What I mean by that is, is your cochlear working, functioning, and have ALL the hair cells needed to hear? If not, you will NOT qualify for BAHA.

There's some CI users that does use Hearing aids in one ear, and CI for the other ear. Some say it's great, gives a sense of balance. I've tried to wear my HA in my other ear with my CI on my left, but the HA overpowers the CI, and I knew that if I keep doing it this way, I will never be able to progress very well with CI. So, I ditched my ha, and strictly only wear the CI.

To me, it sounds like you're getting information and you're confused. Go see another audiologist, go see one that deals with BOTH hearing aids and CI, with years of experience. Good luck.

 

[LadySekhmet]

But anyway .... on to my question. I use my good ear for the phone, I turn my good ear towards conversations to hear better, etc. It's not much different than writing with right vs left..

After my CI assessment..... they suggested if I went ahead with it.... to do my left, since it was the worse of the 2.

How will my brain process that?

So.... with CI. Will I be able to use the phone? Will I "get used to" my good ear being in the left assuming the surgery goes well?

Sorry if this is considered a thread hijack, it seemed to fit in here...

I can tell you this, if you're so used to sounds, and have good auditory memory, some things will sound different. In many ways, it will sound normal. I'm doing this based on MY experience. When I was turned on, I was so surprised on how everything sounded normal, but the audie increased the loudness of the higher frequency, and those are the sounds that I was sorely lacking when I was wearing the Hearing Aids, so it sounds different! I can hear when people say the Shh sounds where I couldn't hear it before. Over time, with good training, your brain will adapt well, and everything will sound normal, if not, better than with hearing aids. It does not work for EVERYONE, but for the majority of the people that I know, and read about on this forum, they don't regret it one bit.

Phone - Yes you will be able to use the phone. Again, it takes training. If you have experienced using the phone for many years with hearing aids, you will do well with CI. I was able to understand my mom 99% of the time with my hearing aids before my deafness got worse. It's still too early for me to really "test" my CI out to see if the phone works well for my case.

There are some people that use both HA and CI.

 

[LadySekhmet]

I disagree with you! Lot of deaf people cant get implants because its not within the scope of what their insurance covers. Hmos and goverment insurance is the worst. You'd be lucky to even get a hearing aid on that kind of insurance.

Dvr is a joke, the wait to get on dvr here is 3-5 years. NO kiding! Plus, dvr wants you to seek full time employment just to qualify. People on ssi wont be seeking full time employment unless they want their ssi gone.

Umm. I have government insurance, and I only have to pay the surgery co-pay of $125 (that's nothing!), they pay for everything else including audiologist mapping visits, speech therapy, the whole shebang. Like I said before, I would say 99% of the insurance companies will not pay for hearing aids because it's cosmetic, just like a pair of glasses.

DVR is not a joke. I got DVR because I was in HS, and needed funds to pay for college. DVR paid for two of my hearing aids. They are a little bit anal because they have a limit of how much they will pay for the hearing aids. I was able to get DVR within a couple months before attending college. It all has to do with money that's alloted to them from the government. If there's 50,000 people getting DVR, they won't get as much. If there's less people getting DVR, then you get more money. It also depends on how much you make, how much your parents' make if you're a dependent. It may be different in your state though, which I think 3 to 5 years seems a little bit too much. All states are different. This is State funded money. Personally - I like DVR because it PUSHES you to get a job. No job, no DVR. Simple.

I wonder though - it could be possible that since the economy is down the toilet these days, it's possible that it affected this. DVR also helps other disabled people as well, so it's possible that they're getting overwhelmed with too many cases and not enough resources available, which I suspect happened in your state. I could be wrong, but I think 3 to 5 years wait is way too much. Why would anyone wait that long?

SSI/SDI is government funded. SSI/SDI - you will lose the benefits if you work full time, so this cause people to stay home, and not really do anything (note: I didn't say "deaf", there's hearing people that does this, and again i didn't say that ALL deaf people does this. Some deserves the SSI/SDI due to MS, inability to get a job, inability to drive, for whatever reason aside from deafness) So, there's a difference between the two.

 

[contradica]

consultation for the BAHA ( since i have 90db loss in left ear and 50 db in the right) I don't really qualify since the "good ear" is still borderline. Anyway, I asked about a cochlear implant in my (dead ear) and the Dr said that the sound is much different than the way my better ear hears so he doesn't think it would be a good idea " your brain would have a hard time processing" Why is that?? I know there are people out there who have an implant in ONE ear! ANYONE???? He did suggest the BiCros, anyone else have experience with this???

I appreciate ANY input you may have!

I disagree with whomever you went to. I wear a cochlear implant in my left ear (have not heard out of it in 15 years) and a HA in right which is profound. You do hear different with a CI then a HA in the beginning but the more you wear it, the more it starts to sound more like the HA. A CI is using pulses of electricity to stimulate the nerve to trick it into hearing. The HA just uses your natural hearing, amplified lord knows how much.

However, you just seem to touch on a big pet peeve of mine. In the past, I had some instances where an audiologist has flat out told me ON THE PHONE that I wasn't a candidate for a CI based on how well I spoke and could hear him on the phone. Good thing I didn't drop things right then and there. There is a big difference between your regular audiologist and a cochlear implant audiologist. Cochlear implant audiologists are specially trained and your run of the mill hearing aid audiologist most likely has NO clue what he is talking about. I get so frustrated when I hear something like this because I think of how many people quality of life has suffered all to fatten up the audiologist wallet. Even your regular ENT doctor isn't of any help unless he has done the surgery, you need to try to find someone who is a reputable cochlear implant surgeon through the websites and your insurance. I'm lucky that my surgeon deals with all three brands and does the BAHA.

If your bad ear has a middle ear problem, then the BAHA would be an option but if you suffer from sensioneural hearing loss then perhaps a CI would be beneficial if you fail all the tests (which means you are a candidate). I hope this helps you!

 

[jasin]

Umm. I have government insurance, and I only have to pay the surgery co-pay of $125 (that's nothing!), they pay for everything else including audiologist mapping visits, speech therapy, the whole shebang. Like I said before, I would say 99% of the insurance companies will not pay for hearing aids because it's cosmetic, just like a pair of glasses.

DVR is not a joke. I got DVR because I was in HS, and needed funds to pay for college. DVR paid for two of my hearing aids. They are a little bit anal because they have a limit of how much they will pay for the hearing aids. I was able to get DVR within a couple months before attending college. It all has to do with money that's alloted to them from the government. If there's 50,000 people getting DVR, they won't get as much. If there's less people getting DVR, then you get more money. It also depends on how much you make, how much your parents' make if you're a dependent. It may be different in your state though, which I think 3 to 5 years seems a little bit too much. All states are different. This is State funded money. Personally - I like DVR because it PUSHES you to get a job. No job, no DVR. Simple.

I wonder though - it could be possible that since the economy is down the toilet these days, it's possible that it affected this. DVR also helps other disabled people as well, so it's possible that they're getting overwhelmed with too many cases and not enough resources available, which I suspect happened in your state. I could be wrong, but I think 3 to 5 years wait is way too much. Why would anyone wait that long?

SSI/SDI is government funded. SSI/SDI - you will lose the benefits if you work full time, so this cause people to stay home, and not really do anything (note: I didn't say "deaf", there's hearing people that does this, and again i didn't say that ALL deaf people does this. Some deserves the SSI/SDI due to MS, inability to get a job, inability to drive, for whatever reason aside from deafness) So, there's a difference between the two.

Well no one here gets on dvr within 3-5 years, I know for a fact, I've been dopwn to there local office. There is a waiting list! The lady thats the counselor at the local dvr office here is Karen, she's deaf and i've already talked with her. Dvr is specifically designed for getting people back to work anyways. Their name implies that, you can't just go in with no intentions of not wanting to work. If you did that then you frauded the system.

I am not able to fully work anyways. If I was able to do that I would not be on social security. If you got an implant or hearing aid on government insurance then you were lucky, one of the fortante few.

 

[Doug5]

hearing aids are cosmetic? They need to start gold plating them for extra bling

I read the ci's work best in young children or hearing people who lost their hearing. Something about brain wiring itself to make sense of the sound. otherwise the sounds end up being noise.