I’m in a trial period on a pair of Starkey Genesis BTEs HAs. I have a severe loss in both ears and have been wearing HAs for a few decades, so not a new user, and have worn Starkey’s before, as well as most of the other major brands. I’m pretty brand agnostic and usually buy the first pair I trial, whatever the audiologist recommends. He’s a new doctor to me, though I bought my previous pair from this same clinic.
With this new pair, he’s given me four adjustments during my 60-day trial, which ends early next month, and I feel like we’re going in circles on the sound, which is still not right. He also has been having me come once every three weeks, so my trial days are going fast. Because of that, at my most recent appointment, I mentioned being open to trialing another brand. He admonished me and said that wasn’t normal. I also found out they’ll also charge me $400 if I say no to these aids.
So my questions are:
Is he right about it not being normal to trial different brands or models back-to-back before purchasing?
Time to move on and find a more sympathetic Audiology clinic,walk away from this guy! it’s your money and you have every right to ask and get the best service you can.
Tenkan is right. My audi encouraged me try a less costly version of the Signia aid that I eventually bought, ( 5 instead of a 7) and offered to let me try other brands as well.; This is normal good practice.
I’m new to HA’s but I have been given the same $400 charge for returning a new pair within the trial period. I was told it was because the $400 represents the cost of the audiologist’s work, which isn’t refundable.
It’s fair enough AS LONG AS this $400 restocking fee charge is stated explicitly on the purchase agreement up front, and reviewed and discussed with you before you pay.
But, if I were to be presented with this situation, what I would consider fair is that as long as I purchase a pair of hearing aids from this HCP, then I should not have to pay for this $400 unless I ended up not buying any HAs from this HCP. On top of that, I should want to be able to trial up to 3 different HA brands/models with this HCP before I settle on which one I want.
And I would want to discuss up front the costs and options for all of the 3 recommended models/brands and have these costs put in writing before I make any payment.
I agree with the above poster that $400 is a reasonable fee for the audi’s services IF that was made clear up front. Many (most?) knowledgeable people try more than one brand of hearing aid unless only a single aid has a unique function that is most important to the customer.
Look at Costco HA prices, quality products and policies. They can satisfy the vast majority of HA needs. You’re paying three times the price at your audiologist for attitude. Who needs that? You would be better off with an OTC HA. You would be happier going to Best Buy.
That’s a fair point from the HCP’s point of view in terms of a piece meal approach. However, from the client’s point of view, assuming that it’s a normal client who’s not demanding or picky and just wants a pair of aids that work for them and doesn’t care to waste time to try a second or third pair as long as the first pair works out for them, then the onus is on the HCP as the professional here to know to recommend the right aid type, brand/model, fitting, and make the proper adjustment to make it work out for the client.
In good faith, if something doesn’t work out, it should be more or less the responsibility of the HCP to ensure a successful outcome because the HCP is the professional here, not the client. The client does not have to be an experienced user who knows exactly what he/she wants right off the bat. It’s just simply not fair to put ALL the risks on the client’s head and make the client pay $400 for the failure if a pair of HAs don’t work out for the client for some reason. The HCP should be the one taking the risk of failure, not the client. If the HCP is competent enough to know how to achieve success, it shouldn’t need to get to a second or third pair to get there.
Note that in the 2nd paragraph, the first words I used was “In good faith”. I don’t suppose that any reasonable client would want to waste a lot of their time on office visits demanding to try out another brand/model unless they really are not happy with their first trial. By the time they have to resort to demanding a third trial, obviously something is not working out between them. I think that’s the risk that the HCP should shoulder, including making a judgement on whether this client is a reasonable client or not. If the HCP deems not, then the number of trials can be negotiated.
But at a minimum, if I’m asked to pay $400 for each trial, on a trial by trial basis, I would forgo that HCP. At a minimum, it should be at most $400 for up to 2 trials. But more reasonably in my opinion, a competent HCP who have had a good track record in fitting their clients successfully the first time or at most the second time around, should not be afraid to offer up to 3 trials for the $400. Maybe the HCP can have the say to pick which brand/model for the client on the second or third trial so that they have some more control over the process.
We do not charge for trials, but I understand the plight of the clinician who does. Your doctor does not refund you the cost of their professional services if their recommendation doesn’t resolve your problem. Nor does your physiotherapist or dentist or massage therapist. (Your chiropractor doesn’t refund you for treating your “subluxations” which literally do not exist.) And usually, it’s not the case that a trial fails because the hearing aid does not or cannot improve an individual’s hearing, it fails because something isn’t ‘enough’. A third trial usually does not succeed because the technology is dramatically different, but because the clinician has learned about the patient and the patient has learned about the limitations of hearing loss. If a clinician provides you with services “in good faith”, should they get paid nothing for their efforts?
That said, I know that I am coming from an experience of a very high level of care which may bias me. Based on some of the stories that I hear, the clinicians I work with are exceptional. Additionally, in the OP’s case, they are an experienced user, which is a little bit different from a failed trial with a new user. At the very least, settings in the new hearing aid can be matched to previous settings that were preferred. Although it is also fairly common for experienced users with progressive decline in their hearing or their auditory system to remember a time when they were hearing better and expect new hearing aids to function like that, when it really wasn’t a change in the hearing aid but a change in the ear. Or, similarly, for new users to experience a “wow” factor with a new device which, now that they have been wearing it long enough to get used to things, they no longer experience.
Forgive me for not perusing all the replies as carefully as I might, but I just want to answer your three questions based on my experience.
There is no normal. Some people are easier to fit and easier to please than others. If the clinic has no explicit rules about numbers of trials, he is off base.
A restocking fee might be normal but again, it matters what the clinic’s rules are.
It raises a huge, energetically waving red flag to me. If possible, ask to be seen by a different provider at that clinic. If that is not possible, pay the ransom (if possible) and walk away. I’ve failed to do that twice and regretted it both times, but the second one was worse (fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me).
In 2010 my analog BICROS aid quit and, having read about Costco on this forum, I went there. Costco does not do custom things like BICROS but in any case I bought a hearing aid from them. This after having been through the private business route for years. The Costo provider could not get it set right and I asked her about bringing it back and trying a different make. She said Costco’s rule was they’d take it back, but if I went that route she’d refuse to sell me anything at all. So I left, made another appointment at a different Costco, and that person was able to set the aid up to my satisfaction.
In 2018 I went to another private audiologist and was fitted with a digital BICROS rig - and was very displeased with the aid (excellent brand reputation) and the settings. I was a stubborn fool, stuck with it, and by 2021 was back at Costco for a Phillips 9030, which works very well and is backed by a Hearing Aid Specialist who is, in my opinion, very gifted; the best!
So - free (but costly) advice: if the clinic will not work with you then run, don’t walk, to a different vendor, and get all the business details straight before committing to anything.
But see, that’s the thing. They DO get paid the $400 even if their efforts failed. If their efforts succeed, then the $400 goes toward the cost of the hearing aids, so the $400 is part of the total profit made on the HAs sale.
For a clinician who provides a very high level of care and almost always succeed in their trials (like yourself), this trial charge is not even an issue because you rarely ever run into a failed trial, so that’s why your clinic doesn’t even bother charging for trials. But not all clinicians operate at a very high level. I’m sure there are also less competent clinicians, and apparently they have much more failed trials, hence THEY do this $400 charge for the trials.
I think what we’re disagreeing here is not whether the clinician should get paid for their effort, but about what this $400 effort covers, 1 trial, or 2 trials, or 3 trials? And who should be taking the risk? If it’s $400 per trial, then it’s the client who will have to shoulder all the risks, which I think is not fair because the client is not the professional in this relationship. That’s why I think a minimum of at least 2 trials would be more fair because then the risk is more equally shared between the two of them. If 3 trials, then of course the risk is still shared, but the clinician is taking on more risk here than the client, which I think would still be more appropriate because the clinician is a professional who is in control here, and is in a position to be able to predict the outcome based on what he/she controls much better than the client.
Likewise, your doctor always get paid, as would your dentist. But I remember when I had a procedure called UPPP done by my ENT (to reduce the size of the uvula to control snoring), for normal people, 1 or 2 treatments would be enough to stop snoring. But in my case, 5 treatments were necessary for me. I was still charged only 1 flat fee until we got the result we needed, and it wasn’t on a treatment by treatment basis. When I had a crown done by my dentist, shortly later on it developed an issue and I had to go get a root canal done on that same tooth by a (different) specialist. After that, I had to go back to my dentist to reseal the hole made through the crown to get the root canal done. My dentist didn’t charge me to refill that hole in my crown, because he should have known about the condition of the nerve on that tooth from the Xray before he put a crown on it. But he missed it. So it’s not about not getting paid for their services, but it’s about doing what it takes to get the job done.
I think the only “should” is that there should be a written agreement. If there is and it was signed, I’d say both parties are bound by it. If there’s not, then nobody is obligated. If the situation is as described, I would likely walk away.
Totally agree 100% about having a written agreement. Perhaps what @Neville and I are discussing here in terms of “should this, should that” is more about what should be a fair arrangement to be put down in that written agreement.
I believe that the most important part is having an independent dispenser or audiologist who can set up the hearing aids properly. They probably have a number of hearing aid brands to chose from…
I had good hearing aids; they weren’t setup properly. They didn’t work.
I went to another dispenser. Now they work the way he set them up.
On the other hand, I don’t know anything about hearing aid marketing and don’t know if the distributors reward high volume sales with lower prices and other incentives.
For some distributors I’m sure it’s all about the money, reducing costs and maximizing profits.
Perhaps your local jurisdiction has a law about what happens if a trial fails. I’d check into that, but be prepared to learn the limit for full refund is 30 days, and your jurisdiction may allow the clinic to charge a fee for professional services, if it’s in the agreement you signed to start the trial.
I’m used to Costco, which allows full refund up to 180 days from delivery. I bought rechargeable Jabra Pro 10s, the bought Jabra Pro 10s with 13 batteries after 130+ days, then did a quick comparison when the new aids came in, and then returned the rechargables for a refund. I have another 6 months with the disposable battery pair. (I was told that I might have trouble if I wanted to return the new HAs, but I’ll be shocked if I want to return them.) But Costco is unusual.
I don’t see anything unusual in not wanting your Starkeys, since the audi couldn’t make them work.
I’d expect a good audi to recommend trying out a different set of HAs and not charging anything if your bought them. I think getting away from this specific audi for only $400 is probably a good deal.
