I’m curious to get your thoughts on this article … Assuming most consumers welcome this approach?
Well, duh; there’s no transparency to bundled prices. I think consumers deserve to understand what they are paying for; and, as the article notes, it’s absurd for experienced users to pay ridiculous markups for bundled services that they’ll never use (among other things).
Yeah, it’s almost like they are making you pay for the combined cost of providing their service…like socialised medicine…
I thought it was a thoughtful article. I think unbundled makes total sense for the transfer patients he spoke of. If both models are of care of offered, I think there’s the risk that only complicated patients seek the bundled approach and that it becomes more and more expensive. I think most people want “value.” Costco uses a bundled approach and they are popular because it’s seen as good value. I don’t know that $8000 hearing aids with full service or $4000 hearing aids with needing to pay for every wax filter, dome and visit will ever be seen as good value.
after reading the article I highly welcome the approach, and actually that is how a ended up using hearing aids in the first place. I knew they were expensive and I didn’t want to settle for the big bulk ones.
My Audiologist the options and price for devices and visits (take note each visit included a trip to a different city). I mad the full investment in 2 year, buying one HA for one year and another one the next year. Truly happy with my decision since I got the HA I really wanted, small and discrete. I truly recommend this options.
Unbundling puts a dollar value on the audiologist’s services. Bundling calls those services “free” meaning included but encourages people to think they have no value. The problem arises when fitting goes awry. Through no fault of the consumer problems can occur which could make the first time users experience so negative that they give up. There are also no provisions for going through the process only to find the HAs need to be returned as unsuitable. The services component would not attract a refund and trialing a HA could become unaffordable. Perhaps an approach which unbundles but still addresses those issues could be devised.
Of course the other problem would be the less competent fitters could attract more fees for repeat services that don’t achieve their goal. Since the patient is not locked in to one provider they are much more likely to take their business elsewhere in that case.
Great points! I read through the article, didn’t quite feel like I could endorse it, not sure why though, so didn’t comment. But after reading these points, I think they would have been the concerns I’d have, too.