Slashdot Mirror
Why Are Digital Hearing Aids So Expensive?
sglines writes "Over the last couple of years I've been slowly getting deaf. Too much loud rock and roll I suppose. After flubbing a couple of job interviews because I couldn't understand my inquisitors, I had a hearing test which confirmed what I already knew: I'm deaf. So I tried on a set of behind-the-ear hearing aids. Wow, my keyboard makes clacks as I type and my wife doesn't mumble to herself. Then I asked how much: $3,700 for the pair. Hey, I'm unemployed. The cheapest digital hearing aids they had were $1,200 each. If you look at the specs they are not very impressive. A digital hearing aid has a low-power A-to-D converter. Output consists of D-to-A conversion with volume passing through an equalizer that inversely matches your hearing loss. Most hearing loss, mine included, is frequency dependent, so an equalizer does wonders. The 'cheap' hearing aids had only four channels while the high-end one had twelve. My 1970 amplifier had more than that. I suppose they have some kind of noise reduction circuitry, too, but that's pretty much it. So my question is this: when I can get a very good netbook computer for under $400 why do I need to pay $1,200 per ear for a hearing aid? Alternatives would be welcome."
It's a guess but a solid one: competition.
Shh.
It's not complicated, hearing aids need to be very small. Neither your 1970's amp nor your netbook will fit in your ear. Making something small and reliable enough for this kind of use is difficult and expensive.
It is a medical device which means that it is subject to insane levels of litigation. Mostly you are probably paying for insurance.
Well, if you have software on your $400 laptop that can do the digital to analog / analog to digital just like you say, the solution is clear: hold one laptop up to each ear.
That's still going to be $800, but that's a lil' cheaper than the $1200 pair you were looking at.
I too have to wear one and it's ungodly expensive. My argument is the fact I need them to have a normal life and work. So if people can get glasses for fairly low price and it's a item that people need then why can't insurance companies provide coverage too? Reason for that it's very specialized market and expensive.
Don't get one of those cheapie $49.95 hearing aids from the ads as they do not provide the proper specs to the type of hearing loss you have. In fact it'll make your hearing worse. It'll be like listening to iPod all day long.
See if they can offer a payment plan.
Good luck.
But this is why it's important to wear ear protection for such seemingly innocuous tasks such as mowing the lawn (or any loud task, really). So many kids back then and still these days listening to their personal music players via headphones where you can hear the music from across the street. It's just stupid and a few $ of protection today will save you $$$ in the long run.
I have relatives going deaf with age, watching TV with them is not fun. TV volumes set at a level wear I have to wear ear protection.
First, it's a medical device, not a commodity consumer item like a netbook, so its manufacturer must prove both its safety and effectiveness, with independent tests, before it can be licensed for sale by the FDA in the U.S., or the corresponding medical regulatory authority in other countries. That process is time consuming, and expensive. Those costs must be paid for, and are reflected in the price. Second, its technology requires extremely low power circuitry, and a much higher level of miniaturization, than a netbook. These factors too, naturally increase the cost of the device.
Entitled attitude? This guy is trying to save money or find an alternative solution to a problem, as he can't afford the options he's seen so far. We should frikkin' elect him to public office.
I'd rather pay double for eyeglasses and hearing aids than go bankrupt because I fell ill.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)