Very true. My current professional sells aids from multiple manufacturers. I would almost consider it a warning sign if they carry aids from more than two manufacturers. They are not likely proficient in all brands.
I don’t agree that there is a limit of two - it’s quite possible to learn around four to a proficient level, as long as you understand the actual effect of the changes you are making.
Your knowledge and experience doesn’t diminish if you encounter more brands, if it’s anything like learning a language the reverse is true as you learn more techniques to deal with common issues.
I’m going to disagree here. Remember that an HIS is the US is probably ten times easier to get than the RHAD. So people often go into the profession with far less experience than a British dispenser.
We see reported on this forum every day the scores of hearing professionals who dispense only one brand or two at the most, and they still screw up the most basic programming. Like that thread the other day where the hearing ‘professional’ didn’t know much about recruitment!!!
If you dispense one brand, you go to the training seminars, all you dispense is the same brand, so you get to learn the quirks of that product and how to make the patients happy. You get a good working relationship with the factory reps and audiologists when you have problems.
To learn this on two, three or four brands is 2, 3 or 4 times as much work, classroom hours, and you are diluting your experience because you are now dispensing half, a third or even a quarter as many hearing aids from each manufacturer.
Someone like you with extensive experience and a good educational background, maybe that’s not a challenge for you. But truthfully, I’ve been appalled at some of the incompetence I’ve read about on this forum, and as such I would say unequivocally that you’re better off dealing with someone who’s an expert at one, than good at four.
Let’s also consider the commercial reality. If I open an Audibel practice tomorrow, I’ll be guaranteed a territory, great wholesale prices, and proper training.
If I open an independent and dabble in 2-4 brands, my volume will dictate higher wholesale prices, fewer perks, less support, and more expense (carrying accessories and parts for multiple brands for example). These costs WILL be passed on to the patient most of the time.
Lo and behold I found a Starkey office in my town. I live in a small town but they come in to our town twice a week.
As far as pricing goes they seem to be inline with the price I got from the Sieman’s people.
I was told that the person giving the test is not an Audiologist but a Hearing Aid Instrument Specialist.
My question is would I get the same results getting a hearing aid from a Audiologist or a Hearing Aid Instrument Specialist.
I think that really depends on the individual professional’s experience. Learning the experience of other customers may be useful here.
Although a good test is needed as a basis for a good hearing aid fit, it must also be coupled with someone who is skilled in programming the aids.
Interesting
I was told by the person I talked to that the person who gives the test is in Las Vagas this week at a Starkey seminar
In that case it’s a fair point. I would have a assumed that properly trained professionals in the industry ought to have treble digit IQ’s, but if the bar is set really low there’s a lot to be said for keeping it simple.
I agree that a significant proportion of the ‘difficulties’ that people seem to encounter on here wouldn’t usually be a problem with the vast majority of what were RHAD, now HPC qualified Audiologists.
Re: the costs - not maintaining a management tree and corporate nonsense saves a fortune though.
I think if you go to an audi that deals with multiple brands they are going to be good with one or two but probably not all if they sell maybe say four brands. The ones they push are going to be the ones they master. It’s basically the same thing you’re told if you need surgery, find the doctor that does a lot of that type of surgery because they will be better at it than the doctor who does one or two a month. Find an audi or HIS that specializes and they will know the line inside and out.
My first test was with Sam’s. The person giving me the test was a Audiologist and the test was given to me in a sound proof booth. The only problem she only sold Liberty
My second test was at Costco’s. There was nothing that showed the credentials of the person giving me the test. He said he has been doing this job for over 20 years. Costco sells 3 brands. One brand he said Seimens makes for Costco. He gave me the hearing test sitting next to him with me wearing headphones.
Next Wed I will have a test by a Hearing Aid Instrument Specialist. Who carries Starkey among other brands.
We’ll see how that goes
I guess they are at the new product seminar with ZCT from this forum.
A sound proof booth is over rated. Provided the room is reasonably quiet (and most states have an actual definition for that in dB), the test will be accurate to within 5%, more than close enough to see the problem, and correctly fit hearing aids.
Back when I got licensed in the UK, it was still very common for us to test in the home, since it was still possible to have free MD visits 24/7, so they expected it of us too. Needless to say, we didn’t carry a sound proof booth with us. Yet the people of England, still got their hearing problems solved.
As for the credentials of the second guy, most states require them to be displayed, but I very much doubt he is anything less than a licensed H.I.S. Practicing without a license isn’t going to fly with a major corporation, and they are not going to open themselves up to the potential liability.
Good luck with your next test.
The best litmus test I can suggest is that any good hearing professional will conclude the testing by fitting you with actual hearing aids, to see how you hear with them. This is by far the most important test anyone can do. Until you wear a real set of hearing aids, it’s impossible to know how the brain will respond to that kind of sound. I always am very skeptical of hearing professionals who recommend aids without first letting you try some on.
I know you do this, but is it common?
Ten years & seven years ago my hearing professional did not do that, but she usually ran a quick hearing test after the aids werw programmed to see if they were functioning close to what was needed.
At the Phonak dealer last year, I was tested by the owner who teaches some audiology classes. After the test he had me try a pair of analog aids he had. My demo aids (Phonak Solana) were ordered & I was turned over to one of the AuD.s who work for hm. He described her as his digital expert. Other than her real ear machine, there was no followup test to determine if my problem was improved.
My current fitter did not try any aids. How common is it to try aids right after the test?
I don’t demo hearing aids on everyone for a couple reasons. My primary one is that I can’t have a pair of demo hearing aids in my office for each level of technology available…and I have an issue (personally) putting the most expensive hearing aids on everyone as that is not necessarily the one I would recommend for them. I feel like it’s a bait-and-switch to some extent. They try the premium aid in the office and love it and then get the one that is $2000 less because they can’t afford/don’t need a $5600 pair of hearing aids and then don’t hear as well. This sets their expectations very high and can be very difficult to overcome. Also, my room for hearing aids is square with reflective surfaces all over the place so, truth be told, it’s not the best room to hear a hearing aid in. Yes they could leave the room and walk around which I’m fine with, but the wearer needs to wear them where they are all the time to see if they work, not my office or the office hallway or even the cafeteria. I stress the importance of the trial period and why I don’t do demos in general. Now if a patient really wants one, after deciding which one they want I’m more than happy to have that ordered and let them try it in the office and walk around and everything, but still stress how important the entire 30-days is and how important it is to wear it at home. Who cares about how it sounds in my office? I want it to sound good for them at home…I can’t duplicate that in my office no matter how hard I try.
I was with you up to this part. The Audibel near me must not have gotten the memo because they easily charge up to $3000 more for the same pair of hearing aids as I do. So being part of a chain like Audibel doesn’t necessarily mean that prices will be lower because of bulk discounts. They might cost less to Audibel, but they are not always passing that savings onto their customers. I have strong words for anyone who tells a 75-80 year-old couple that they need to spend $15,000 on 2 pairs of hearing aids.
I never said that the business owner would choose to pass those great wholesale prices on to the patient did I?!?
Once you get into a franchise situation you have certain minimum requirements of signage, the way the office looks, franchise fees, stuff like that. Then you have the individual who may or may not wish to raise as much money as possible per sale to provide a strong foundation for his new business, pay back his start up loans, and maybe expand into a little hearing aid empire with multiple stores across a wide territory.
And yes, some business owners do this on the backs of their patients. But that’s what America is, a capitalist society where profit is made even from the sick and needy.
Remember I’m a liberal who believes in socialized medicine, so you’re preaching to the choir.
ZCT,
Is it your opinion that the sick and needy hearing patients get better and quicker treatment in the UK? Why did you come to the US?
In my experience I always got cheaper and quicker health care in the UK. And statistically other countries with socialized medicine (which is just about every industrialized country) perform better than we do, while spending less money. We spend more per capita than any other nation on the planet, yet suffer from horrific returns on that investment. As one example, our infant mortality rate is 46th in the world. And by another measure we are 37th in world rankings for health care according to WHO. Not great considering the money we all pump into the system (out of interest, it’s about triple what the Brits spend per capita, so even trying to draw a comparison between the countries is like saying, my $60,000 car is faster than your $20,000 car).
Also, since you asked about the needy, you might be interested to know that the number of Americans who do not have proper access to affordable health care, is about the same as the entire population of England and Scotland. Not a very cool statistic. So yeah, if I were poor or long term sick, I’d be living in the UK.
My reasons for coming to the US are not really relevant. Are you saying that as an immigrant I am not allowed to state an opinion on what I see? Do you think that the patriotic thing to do is pretend that problems don’t exist?
I was just curious about your views and invited you to amplify on them. I don’t know if your reason for coming here is relevant to the level of health care in the Uk versus the US or not.
BTW: the statistic you cite do not use the same criteria for the data. Fro instance I think the time period first month versus two years for infant mortality is different for the US versus other countries, but confess I don’t remember the details.
For me, the proof of the pudding is in the eating: not many Americans travel to the UK or even nearby Canada to get medical treatment (except for banned procedures) whereas the reverse is not the case.
I do not deny there are problems with our healthcare system. It is being overloaded by freeloaders and is bogging it down. Illegals should be given emergency triage care and then put on the first plane back so they can partake of the much higher medical care in their native land.
I think that if the many Americans who do not have access to high-quality health care (because they either do not have insurance, or their HMO will not adequately cover the medication and/or procedures that they need) could somehow access Canada’s universal health-care system in the same way that Canadians do, they most certainly would.
This, by the way, is coming from an American living in Canada. I have experienced both health-care systems, and given my experiences, there is no question which one I would choose. I may have to wait a bit longer here (depending on the condition/procedure), but I know I will get the health care I need and not be financially bankrupted. The same could not be said for my experience in the States.
I am originally from Canada, but have been in the US since the early 1980s. I was in the province of Ontario when they first started government healthcare. I think that years ago, there were concerns about denial of expensive treatments and long approval times for major medical treatments.
I know there are currently long delays in Canada for major medical treatments. I have a friend up there currently dealing with hip and cancer surgery. He has been stuck at home since the summer and hopes to have his cancer surgery next month. Some Canadians can probably get quicker results by getting care in the US.
That may be a long time, but it is better than the current situation in the US where healthcare is basically controlled by the insurance companies. Dugs and medical treatments are denied due to expense and, because of the insurance contracts, you cannot get treatment if insurance denies coverage. I have asked about prices to pay for some of the medical treatment needed by my wife and the providers will not give a price after insurance has denied coverage.
In my opinion, health insurance companies in the US are guilty of malpractice since they practice medicine by overruling the examining professionals without even seeing the patient. Their government donations buy them protection from prosecution.
If everyone is happy with the health care they get in other countries, I am happy for them. Most Americans are happy with our system. These are exceptions both here and elsewhere.
There are many problems with the current US system, but the insurance companies themselves are only one factor. Government is a bigger factor. It dates back to WWII where the solution to FDR’s wage freeze was to provide an employer furnished health insurance to attract good workers. This has led to all sorts of problems such as non-portability.
Making health insurers immune from tort liability for decisions to deny treatment or drugs is wrong, but I believe it will be much worse if a government bureaucrat is the one making the decision.
Some states mandate that health insurance cover botox and hair transplants so I or my employer has to pay for everyone that wants those. I cannot use a company or a policy that for example does not cover them. I cannot buy from an insurer in another state that does not require health insurance to cover them. I cannot buy a (much cheaper) policy that just covers major medical - it has to cover what the government mandates.
Another problem is the squeeze being put on medical professionals - many are getting out or retiring early because of the paperwork or the government is cutting their reimbursement rates. I know many get into medicine because they genuinely want to help people, but for many the potential high income is another factor. Our best and brightest may no longer see medicine as a highly desirable profession and the quality of our healthcare will eventually decline.
Um bongo says 75% of the HAs dispensed in the UK end up in a drawer and Kev says many UK audis are Ok with that as it is less work for them. I think he also talked about how audis have quotas to meet so the goal is to get them in and out fast.
Each system can have its problems.