Slashdot Mirror
Is There a Hearing Aid Price Bubble?
An anonymous reader writes "The price of a pair of hearing aids in the U.S. ranges from $3,000 to $8,000. To the average American household, this is equivalent to 2-3 months of income! While the price itself seems exorbitant, what is even more grotesque is its continuous pace of growth: in the last decade the price of an average Behind the Ear hearing aid has more than doubled. To the present day, price points are not receding — even though most of its digital components have become increasingly commoditized. Is this a hearing aid price bubble?"
Someone's parents are getting older.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
This outrageous story will fall on deaf ears
You, sir or madam, are ignorant. Most insurance plans don't cover hearing aids. And try to get one of these digital hearing aids through the gummint. Ain't gonna happen.
No sig? Sigh...
I remember my mom and her husband went on vacation and had some trouble with his hearing aid. Basically, he plugged it in to recharge it and the charger burnt out; it could only handle U.S. voltages. The couple staying in the room next door saw the blackened charger sitting in front of their door and asked what had happened. They found the whole thing very strange. They were European, and their hearing aid charger could adapt to any global voltage, and they had never heard of one that worked otherwise. If I remember right, the woman's own hearing aid was also significantly higher-tech than my mom's husband's. It was not only smaller, but it fit deep into the ear canal (I'm not talking about a cochlear implant, this was a hearing aid). The important thing here is that my parents, living in the U.S., had neither seen nor heard of either technology. Their doctor had given them a couple of choices for a hearing aid and they chose the better one -- which obviously wasn't as good as what you could pick up in Europe. I don't know what they paid for the hearing aid, but it seems to me like something funny is going on.
Breakfast served all day!
Most insurance plans do not cover purchases of hearing aids.
/.'s 10 Millionth
Not necessarily. I was born with hearing loss, and have been denied coverage for my entire life due to pre-existing condition. My family had to scrape up cash when I was a kid. As an adult, (I'm 44 now) I lived in a shithole areas with marginal jobs - it took years to get management to consider health coverage. There was no way I could have afforded insurance on my pay grade, even if they would cover hearing aids.
I finally got laid off long ago and turned to the government. That fixed the problem.
As for a price bubble, I actually don't think its too far out of line, when you consider the capabilities of the newer models. Be aware also that some of the silicon is covered under patent licenses from Bose and Siemens, at least in the higher-end models. And the higher-end models are truly amazing compared to the old analog stuff I grew up with.
C|N>K
Insurance doesn't "buy them" and much depends on what your plan is and/or covers.
In my own case, I needed one hearing aid. Total price $4k. My insurance covered exactly half of that. I'm glad to have it, but what we still have here is an FDA-controlled cartel. There is the "Why not jack up the price."
I wear hearing aids in both ears, as a souvenir of my time in the Navy back in '72. If my hearing loss weren't service connected I'd have had to buy my own, and there's no way I could possibly have afforded them. As it is, I got them from the VA (The biggest buyer of hearing aids in the USA.) for free. Hearing aids are overpriced because it's a seller's market and health insurance companies are willing to shell out whatever the manufacturer asks. And, of course, if your insurance doesn't cover them, you're stuck with two unpleasant choices: either you pay full retail price or you do without.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
I'm sure the average American household is well above that.
They may be counting single-occupancy dwellings as "households," but the important part is, probably a great many of the people who require hearing aids are either already on fixed income or are close to retirement.
And if there is a price bubble, the Chinese will be right there to correct it.
TFA claims the ones we're paying $2,000 for are already being manufactured in China for $100. The problem is that a hearing aid is technically a durable medical device. Many people prefer to consult with a professional to get the right model, correct fit, etc., and some states actually forbid hearing aids being sold by mail or by anyone other than a licensed professional. So that kinda puts a damper on the grey market for many people.
Breakfast served all day!
An article on how expensive hearing aids are from a hearing aid company that advertises their low costs.
GENERATION 9882463: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig & add a random number to the generation.
Why should they lower their prices? The cost to have the device approved by the FDA means that there are few players. All of the players know the game.
Seems like a great opportunity for a blue-tooth headset manufacturer to differentiate their product line. Don't even advertise it as having hearing-aid functionality - if anything promote it as one of those "big ears" gimmicks like in the backs of comic books. If a $100 headset is even just 50% as good as a $5000 super-miniaturised hearing aid, word of mouth will be all it takes for them to being selling like hotcakes within a year.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Capitalism at its finest.... people have needs... you have answers.... gouge em till they stop asking! Or gouge their insurance and drive rates up for everyone.
CAPITALISM DOES NOT BELONG IN MEDICINE. SINGLE PAYER, NON PROFIT. DO IT.
I've been wearing the suckers in both ears since I was in 2nd grade due to a high level of conductive hearing loss. I'm lucky that my family can afford them.
I've been approached many times – both domestically and while abroad – by people who needed them, but couldn't afford them. This may make sense in third world countries where people may not have access to more advanced technology, but it makes zero sense in "first world" countries.
One possible reason why the technology is so expensive is that many of the leading companies (Oticon, Phonak, amongst others) are actually in Switzerland and Denmark, and manufacture them -as far as I can tell- in their home countries. Just a thought.
Either way, there should be some kind of government program for these. The Walmart and AirMall (seriously - look at the AirMall catalog next time you fly.) brands just won't cut it if someone has advanced hearing-loss.
No. Healthcare costs are where they are because the CAPITALISM factor is involved.
With Single Payer Non-Profit, you can expect a 40-50% decrease in total cost to insure. Modeling after Canada's cost/person, a reduction from $1.5TR/250M-people to $1TR/300M-people is possible. That means the 250 million that pay for insurance are paying 1.5 TRILLION a year for shoddy, exclusion rich, insurance when the sum of all Americans, 300 million people, would be paying 1 TRILLION to cover everyone without any exclusions or b.s. trickery.
I've talked to over 40 canadians about how they feel about their single-payer system and NOT A SINGLE ONE agreed with the US-paid-pundits that lie about how canadian's don't like their healthcare. Matter of fact, more than 25% of them laughed when I first asked, knowing that I had been exposed to the US-paid-pundits and required truthful answers.
And yet every similar device that isn't a hearing aid has come way down in price in that same time frame. The difference is that the FDA won't butt out of hearing aids.
This.
Say what you will about financial motivation, but for-profit healthcare is a morally bankrupt and ultimately self-defeating strategy. I'm fine with the doctors and professionals getting paid, everyone needs a job, but these people should not be greedy middlemen in the sales industry. They're not "adding value", they're double-dipping.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Actual capitalism is fine in medicine. Fraud, bribery, corrupt regulation, and general unchecked avarice drive up prices. We need fewer medical regulations, and more white collar crimes police units.
Where capitalism has absolutely no place is insurance. Private insurance, yes; for profit insurance, are you @#$% kidding?!?
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Here's the Consumer Reports article on hearing aids
http://www.consumerreports.org/health/healthy-living/home-medical-supplies/hearing/hearing-aids/overview/hearing-aids-ov.htm
and here's a Washington Post article about it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/22/AR2009062201623.html
Unfortunately it's 2 years old, and the ratings are behind a paywall (CR doesn't take ads, and they've got to pay the bills somehow).
Also unfortunately they only tested hearing aids selling for $1,800 to $6,800 per pair.
They said there's about a 100% markup, so there's room to negotiate.
What I was really looking for, and what I couldn't find, was an article from an audiology journal which rated the low-priced hearing aids. They said that there were $500 hearing aids that were quite adequate for most people.
Can anybody who follows this research help me out with some cites?
This is one of the biggest reasons why social security is in trouble.
This is so wrong! You have bought into the shell game and misdirection that so many politicians have been leading. The Social Security trust fund holds over $2.5 trillion. Most of this has been lent to other under funded government projects. That's the problem. We don't want to pay back the the money we borrowed from the Social Security system and instead say the system is broken. It isn't. The systems is fully self funded. We've just been treating the huge Social Security surpluses as a giant piggy bank for so long that we find it easier to say Social Security is broken than pay back the money we stole!
Hm... seems like an opportunity...
well you pay for the medical professional's advice and consultation outside the already incredible price for the hearing aid, so charging $2000 for a $100 device is really just an incredible abuse of power. This is why for profit medicare sucks.
It may be an abuse of power, but I don't know that it's the doctor who's the abuser. Doctors are probably forced to buy everything through "the approved channels" -- they can't just fly someone to China and come back with a suitcase full of $100 hearing aids, and they're probably not even allowed to distribute literature to patients about shopping for a grey market hearing aid on their own. So if a patient has to go to a U.S. doctor, then the patient has to pay the U.S. price.
It is funny, though. My parents, who are fairly Republican and were vehemently against "Obamacare," are already driving to Mexico to fill their prescriptions, where they cost something like 70 percent less. For some reason, my parents cannot see the doublethink of voting against healthcare reform despite the position they find themselves in. I think it's just the paralysis of fixed income -- you're so desperate to protect what you have right now that you will resist any change -- even though, deep down, you can feel the vice tightening around you.
Breakfast served all day!
You're too dim to understand the difference between non-profit and capitalism.
Non-profit means all of the people involved in the work still get paid. The doctors get paid. The nurses. The hospitals. The people who administer payment from the single payer system even get paid.
What DOESN'T exist is MORE MONEY/COSTS being taken out for people who do not actually do the work. These are the stockholders to insurance companies.
I'm glad you gave me the opportunity to explain this to you so now you understand.
I do stem cell research for a living. I am paid a WAGE not a PROFIT, for my work; and if I were to produce something patentable, I would be able to be well paid based on negotiations between me, the patent owner, and the firms that purchase the product. Compensation and Wage are NOT profit.
So why is it that single payer non-profit health insurance is 40% LOWER in cost than *ANY* for profit insurer out there?
You've expressed that it will win, but you've got NO FACTS to show. In the US, insurance is largely FOR PROFIT. Please demonstrate one company where they charge LESS than can be achieved by single-payer..... I'll wait... Matter of fact I"ll check for your response in a week because I know you won't find ANYTHING. If what you said was true, people would be using that insurer like crazy!
Get out of your utopian head and back to reality. Capitalism in medicine is criminal.
You, sir or madam, are ignorant. Most insurance plans don't cover hearing aids. And try to get one of these digital hearing aids through the gummint. Ain't gonna happen.
True on the insurance part, not so much on the gov't part. I get a digital hearing aid for 100% free (thank you, taxpayers) every two years from the VA. They rolled to full digital HA's a long time ago.
"General unchecked avarice" is pretty much a perfect definition of capitalism.
The only thing that would hold that avarice in check is a well-informed market that has a reasonable understanding of the products in the market, knows how to estimate things like cost to produce and profit margins, and actually cares enough to walk away when a transaction isn't a roughly equal exchange of value. I don't care how much government regulation you throw at a market, it won't a be a successful inhibition of that avarice in the absence of an educated market. The producers will always find ways to express their avarice in spite of regulation as long as there are enough Barnum-esque dumbshits willing to pay an unreasonable price.
Notice that I used the word "would": we don't have that well-informed market, and haven't for a long time. Such a market might have existed once before the Industrial and Information Ages, but not since then. Our regulated - socialized - capitalism is a poor substitute for either a true libertarian free market or a genuine Marxian socialist economy, but that mongrel is the best we'll get for now. The species hasn't evolved enough general intelligence for the former nor enough ethics and cooperativeness for the latter. To dream the impossible dream, indeed!
I do stem cell research for a living. I am paid a WAGE not a PROFIT, for my work; and if I were to produce something patentable, I would be able to be well paid based on negotiations between me, the patent owner, and the firms that purchase the product. Compensation and Wage are NOT profit.
How exactly would the patent owner recover the expense of your research? Drug _manufacturing_ isn't where the expense lies, the cost is in identifying the compound to manufacture. If you base the price on the manufacturing cost, then there is no money left for research on new products.
And I dispute your suggestion that stockholders and insurance companies don't contribute meaningfully to the process. Stockholders provide their cold, hard cash that helps the company e.g. make payroll during the research phase; insurance allows companies to take greater risks and still remain financially solvent if those bets don't pay out. Both are very real and tangible contributions.
Tell you what. Launch a business that has no stockholders, and purchases no insurance. Let me know how that works out for you.
b.g.
I have a bill here from LabCorp. Price before insurance: $327.60 (for some routine bloodwork.) Price after insurance "adjustments": $14.88. So it's not just that they overcharge, it's that they deliberately overcharge the uninsured who have no idea what anything should cost.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
Just to make sure we're using the language as we intend to. Two different things are often referred to as "rights" but are different in kind.
A right is a claim you have against a government, whether to safeguard or to provide. Voting is a right; the government is obligated to provide the means to do so and behave correctly in response to those votes (not cheat the counts, actually let the ones voted in take office, etc.). Legal representation is a right; the government must permit you to receive legal advice for a trial, and if you don't have the means for that it is further obligated to provide you with the means.
A liberty is a thing that the government is not allowed to infringe. Free speech is a liberty; the government must allow people to speak freely and may not interfere with that freedom, but it is not obligated to provide people with the means by which to engage in it (for example by handing out telephones or the intelligence to engage in civil discourse). Bearing arms is a liberty; the government must not disarms its citizens, but it's not responsible for actually proving them arms.
First a disclaimer: in my household we have to buy high-powered BTE every 4 years or so, so I am close to the subject.
So, let's see:
First off, we should discern between medically useful features and convenience features, realizing that there is no sharp line between them. We buy fully digital, high-power BTE aids with complex programming capabilities, and those aids (which are pretty much top of the line when it comes to their intended function, i.e., help the wearer hear as well as possible) do not cost $8000 a pair. Not even close - try about half that. We forego bluetooth (but not FM), a gazillion programs, microscopic sizes the size of a fly head (not available of you are profoundly deaf anyways) and God knows what else for pooling our resources (= $$$) into maximum power and amplification/programming capabilities. I suppose we get the Ferrari, not the Lamborghini, if you wish. A lot of cost goes into stuff you may not need (but may want just as much as you want an iPad you probably don't need).
Second, there is significant markup when you buy retail - because you cannot just buy the aid, you also buy the service to have the aid fitted to you. That cost is never broken out, but you would be surprised how much your audiologist might charge you there. Definitely an eye opener. Seems a bit like a cartel, really.
Third, I will give hearing aid companies that they (at least some of them) do a lot of R&D. As I said, we need to get cutting edge aids, and so far I have seen significant improvements over the years. Now that may change (soon??), thoguh I have to say there is still plenty to be done to make BTE aids better performing. Same goes for convenience, but I do not want to pay that price.
Fourth, there seems to be an uptick in insurance companies to pay for aids (ours has not in the past). At least for children and young adults I think it is flat out a crime not to pay for aids.
Fifth: If you really want to be upset you should ask what the production cost of those aids is, and what the resulting markup is. Would want you to become a maker of BTE aids in an instant. But, fo course, that is where capitalism sort of fails: this is a very high entry market. To play, you need to invest a lot of money and a lot of time. And once you made it, you can fleece (ahem, charge) your customers accordingly.
So, are they too expensive? A lot of them are, but if you are smart about it, you can save thousands of dollars or euros (the story is identical in Europe) and still get the aid you want with full warranty. BTW, I heard they are (much) cheaper in Asia.
I do agree,however, in that I wonder whether the "digital gains" are now starting to peter off, and the main advances will be in software only. Well, I suppose I will find out again next year ...
Do your own thing. And overdo it!
What we don't like are the long waiting lists for some surgeries, and in general the unreasonably long ER waiting times. Some affluent people do choose to go stateside and pay for their surgery in order to bypass the waiting list.
One thing that does suck is we don't have enough doctors to go around. I'm not too sure what's up with that, but it is one of the main causes of those long ER delays. In big cities it's not uncommon to wait 4-6 hours for an emergency consult, unless you roll in on an ambulance with a severed limb... Family doctors are also very scarce. I perceive that as a government failure, they're not providing enough incentives for people to suffer through med school. More family doctors = more early prevention = less burden on the hospitals, but since when has any politician bothered with the long term outlook ?
We still have group health insurance, but that's mostly to cover little extras like dental, eyecare and prescriptions, along with certain hospital upgrades - you get a shared room by default, or you can pay extra for a private or semi-private room. Sometimes this privatization works in the patient's favour, sometimes it results in massive industry wide insurance fraud and price fixing. Dental in particular is egregious, as dentists have been steadily hiking their prices to max out everyone's yearly coverage - or else the remainder is "wasted" :P. The last time I went for a cleaning and X-rays, two visits used up $2500 in insurance! Needless to say, I didn't go back to that scammer... but it is a growing trend as the only oversight comes from the dentists' association itself. Self-regulation ? Yeah right!
Eyecare is much more competitive, partly because there are more eye doctors, and also because you can get many basic services in pharmacies and at Costco very cheaply. The specialists focus on edge cases and LASIK surgery, which is not covered by the government nor most private insurance plans. We don't have as much bait-and-switch crap as you cowboys with your $99 LASIK (and $1200 add-ons), I think the latest price was around $400-500 per eye for most cases - about the same as a mid-range pair of eyeglasses so quite affordable.
Despite the criticisms, we're decently healthy and I think most people have good faith in the health system. It has its shortcomings, but the lack of up-front financial niggling means people are more likely to step up when someone is in need. We also don't end up suing each other over medical bills, and for the few cases where we do, it's usually handled by our auto insurance to cover lost wages and incidental costs - not the hospital visit! Less middlemen = more efficiency.
There is no system that can please everyone, but from what I understand of the U.S. healthcare situation, even a shitty "Single Payer" system would be better than none at all. For one, it would take power away from the private insurance companies, who seem to boss patients and hospital staff around like their bitches. It would also eliminate the situation where your insurance suddenly drops you on a technicality (read: because you're unprofitable). This doesn't mean you can't still have private clinics and hospitals if you have the cash, but these would have to go well above and beyond the current standard of quality. That seems like a good thing: decent care for everyone, faster/luxurious care if you're filthy rich... either that, or they will fly to some foreign country and pay their doctors, as is already done EN-MASSE!
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Really, when was the last time you talked to an insurance company and thought: "They really attempt to be the best they can at their job.
Ah, me neither.
-Greg
Okay, that out of the way, let's look at "Health Care is a right." Based on your argument I think you really did mean right in the sense outline above. I disagree with that stance. Health care is a liberty and not a right. The government can't get in the way of a person seeking it but is not obliged to provide it. Health care is a thing used by an individual. It is not right for the government to take resources from everyone in the form of taxes, and then use them to provide resources to individuals, even if it's to each individual. If groups of people want to band together voluntarily for that purpose, that's great. In fact, at the fundamental level that's what insurance is.
Since you bring up health care costs, let me posit one reason why such inefficiencies abound. And let me acknowledge right now that I don't have any data on this as it is a hypothesis. It seems strange that health care is so intimately tied to employment in the US. It's actually a weird relic from WWII when there were strong wage controls in the US. How do you compete for employees when you can't just pay them more? Give them the health care that congress forgot to include in the controls! These days the reason health care is tied to employment is that it's deductible for the company and never counts as income to be taxed for the recipient. That means that the recipient is essentially paying less for the insurance because he gets out of paying those taxes. That amounts to a massive government subsidy on health insurance. Worse, it pretty much guarantees a large demand since everybody's going to buy the insurance if the government's footing part of the bill. Inflated demand combined with subsidies is not a recipe for efficiency.
P.S. I split the posts because I suspect this is an unpopular opinion to hold here and anticipate being modded down, but I figured the definition part might see the light of day and be of some use.
Part of the reason why Doctors in other industrialized nations do well is because the state picks up the bill on their education and provides legal protections against rampant malpractice lawsuits without merit, thus lessening the need for costly malpractice insurance. In most industrialized countries, even a legitimate malpractice lawsuit tends to have lower payouts due to the fact that the patient still receives the benefit of health coverage and cannot be denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition.
Take these factors into account, and a doctor in Switzerland, or Germany, for instance, can make anywhere from 50-60% less gross than a doctor here in the US, and still end up with more net income in the end when you take out the payments made to student loans, malpractice insurance and any number of board and licensing fees. Also consider that most practices cover the malpractice insurance of the rest of their medical staff (i.e., nurses, equipment techs, etc.).
The other side of the coin is that practices in other countries usually have a shorter list of insurance carriers to deal with, and most, if not all of them, are required to pay in a very timely manner, whereas in the US, every insurance company has their own way of handling insurance payouts, and failure to follow their exacting methods will result in payment denial. Even if you follow their procedure, most insurance companies take 60-90 days to pay out to providers. And this is common in the industry.
"Thank you Barack, we already know your opinion."
Notice that Barack worked to get exactly the opposite of a single-payer system instituted (namely, more forced payments to private insurance companies). Personally, I would not mind seeing his butt kicked up and down the street a few times for that. You're seeing a certain color as its opposite.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Capitalism, or free market? Not exactly the same thing. Free market does not necessarily work well in health industry because the customer is obligated to buy, sometimes at the expense of their own life if they do not buy. They may not have time to shop around, can't vote with their wallet. In essence it's not a true free market because buyer and seller are not on equal terms. You also have a third party involved which is the doctor. A doctor can make a recommendation that thbe patient needs a procedure or a prescription without being a part of the financial transaction. The doctor may be making a recommendation that is not necessarily a good economic one for these reasons, such as recommending a premium drug instead of a generic one. (also complicated because some drug companies give vouchers so that the patient has the same co-pay for both the premium drug and the generic version, hiding the true cost that goes to the HMO/insurance)
No, most of it goes to the executives. Check the compensation disclosed in the medical sector and compare to net profits of the relevant corporations.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
An education in medicine is overpriced because existing doctors control how many stutends a meed school is allowed to take.
It's artificially restrected even though the us has less doctors per capita than any developed nation. I'm curious what the hear aid price is in say canada or france.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
If the components "have become increasingly commoditized"... then capitalism will fix this. Some enterprising person will come along and start up a new company making hearing aids for half the current asking price and the market will fix itself. If the components really are specialized enough that they can demand the prices they have now then that won't happen (and then there is nothing wrong with the current prices).
This is actually exactly what the "story" is about... it is asking if the current market is overpriced... and if so is there going to a "bubble" where the market for hearing aids falls due to some disruptive company (or technology shift).
This is actually capitalism at work!
If there were just a single supplier (like the government) then there would be no incentive to innovate (do you honestly think that hearing aids now are the same as they were 10 years ago? My grandfather says they are orders of magnitude better (he is almost completely deaf). They would just keep pumping out "The Citizen's Hearing Aid" for years to come and that would be your only choice...
I don't really understand why people are so quick to jump to socialism for answers when things are expensive. In most cases they are expensive because they can be, because they were hard to make / invent... and if that isn't the case then capitalism "fixes" it through market forces. Yes, there are some markets where competition doesn't work... but I hardly think that hearing aids is one of those....
uhm.
how shall i say this politely.
you are a victim of an educational system that has not allowed you to discover the basic, fundamental truths of the world you live in.
No, wages come out of the gross, and are a cost before profit. Understanding that is really key to understanding what non-profit means, exactly.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
In big cities it's not uncommon to wait 4-6 hours for an emergency consult, unless you roll in on an ambulance with a severed limb...
We have that in the US too. My medium sized city has a few of the best hospitals in country. Unless you're bleeding severely, giving birth, or having a heart attack you can count on a multi-hour wait at the emergency room. The only different thing from Canada is that patients get to walk out with fat bill. Something minor runs hundreds. Something major costs thousands.
"Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."
Capitalism makes things cheaper. Blame something else.
Per capita, the United States spends more money on healthcare than any other country in the world. The country paying the second most is Norway. The US spends 50% more money per capita than Norway. The US ranks 36th in longevity. The majority of countries which have longer longevity than the US have per-capita healthcare costs that are less than half of what the US pays.
Per-capita healthcare costs by country: http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/OECD042111.cfm
Longevity by country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
The idea that capitalism makes things cheaper is *generally* true, but it's certainly not true in all cases. There are plenty of reasons that things can be cheaper or more expensive. In general, people don't want to go cheap with their healthcare, for fear of the repercussions. This makes it a sellers market, even when spending half as much produces the same or almost the same results. And there are plenty of other reasons why US healthcare is so expensive.
The problem is that a hearing aid is technically a durable medical device.
That is exactly the problem. Because it is a "medical device" it is subject to a bunch of regulations. One of the things is that the company that manufactures it must meet various FDA regulations for the manufacture of a medical device. Then you have the various state regulations. The overall effect of these regulations is to limit competition.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Except that this is not the result of capitalism. This is the result of government regulation.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Medical regulations aren't causing the expense of your hearing aids. I don't know where the blame lies, but that almost certainly isn't it. The reason capitalism isn't necessarily fine with medicine is the number of suppliers is often so limited, there is no real competition.
Government regulations are the primary reason why the number of suppliers is so limited. The regulations governing the manufacture and sale of medical devices are subject to interpretation and the FDA will not necessarily give you the definitive word on what the correct interpretation is.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I guess I'd feel about like the vast majority of the workforce.
Hearing aids are regulated by the FDA which is why it costs $5k or so in paperwork.
Here is capitalism. It looks like a hearing aid but it is really a sound amplifier so it is not regulated by the FDA. It costs $70.
http://www.amazon.com/Voxom-Hearing-Aid-Sound-Amplifier/dp/B005AM7S3K/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1315622221&sr=8-9
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Although it's called "healthcare reform", it's only reform in the sense that the form is new. It is not reform in the sense of improvement, it's naked tyranny.
True healthcare improvement would involve things like closing the FDA, ending licensure laws, prohibiting the extension or renewal of drug patents, and removing state restrictions on insurance companies.
A hearing aid is simpler than a radio, and radios can be had for $5 at Walmart. Hearing aids should be even cheaper.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
It charges less money but requires you pay in other ways. Services are limited to only those approved by the single payer system. Like all price controls there is rationing where people have to wait for service.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
I used to work for a hearing aid company in IT.
The most expensive programmable digital hearing aid with all the options topped out at around $1200. That's the cost to the hearing care professional. So yeah, that hearing aid would turn around and sell for at least 3 to 4 times that.
Also, the company had an extended warranty that we sold to the hearing care professional. Most of them don't turn around and sell that to the customer. Instead, they pay for it themselves and then when a customer brings a hearing aid back they sent it to us for free to fix and they charged the customer for it. It seemed like quite a nice racket. Especially when you consider they also charge for the hearing checkup, fitting, and all of that other usual crap above and beyond what the hearing aid itself cost.
I'm not sure what the rest of the medical device industry looks like, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was fairly similar. I know the markup on my glasses frames is pretty crazy.
This is why for profit medicare sucks.
I dunno, that's the model that's followed in veterinary medicine and their prices are lower, their equipment up to date and the waits are shorter than most human-care systems.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Simply put, but this is the actual answer to the question posed in the summary. The cost of health service and supplies are greatly inflated in the states compared to most of the modern world. I don't mean in the sense of "oh, in other countries it's paid for by taxes" sense or the "yeah but it is inferior quality care" sense but the actual amount that the provider gets paid for exactly the same supplies or service, regardless of who is paying it in the end. As an outsider looking in at America i really do not understand how the health provider industry in the states managed to pull it off.
Americans are getting ripped off on health care hard, to the tune of 2 to 10 times the prices paid out to suppliers or service providers in other countries. I think given the amount of discussion on HOW or WHO will be paying for health care in past years, some groups had to be lobbying very hard to keep the topic of "Why is it so damned expensive here to begin with" out of the limelight.
And they succeeded.
Ice Cream has no bones.
isn't wanting something cheaper just as greedy as wanting something more expensive?
If I demand a $5 hearing aid how is that less greedy than charging $5k? Value is set by the individuals on both sides of a transaction.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
When she got it, we were fairly well off - just sold a company and to be frank, I didn't notice how much it cost.
recent problems with it put me on the front lines - and getting a bill for $800 just to fix is gave me a lot of angst. I have to say I railed at the person on the front counter quite a bit considering I know a lot about analog, digital, integrated circuits, and such - and basically told her that IMHO the components she was quoting as retail in the $3000 range were worth about $10 or less.
Then she loaned us an "over the ear" unit while the in-the-ear one was out for repair - and when I went to give it back, said "keep it" - so confirming that the actual hardware cost is trivial (unit is about 3 times the size of the current one but otherwise similar capabilities - and given the progress in IC units, represents maybe 3 years' progress)
So... when I heard an ad on the radio last week for an in-ear hearing aid for $500, I figured "about time" and so the poster is correct - there is a revolution coming.
Question is - what patents will be held over the heads of those trying to break this cartel - because it truly must be a cartel.
Note that I can now (despite the eye-glass cartel of yesteryear) purchase more than useful eye-glasses in various basic diopters at the local dollar store - to the point where I have enough around the house that I have achieve "maxiumum vapour pressure" of eye-glasses (i.e. there is a pair at hand any time/where I need them)
richard
Been there, done that, paid for the T-shirt
and didn't get it
What is the "best they can at their job" mean for an insurance company?
It means achieving excellence in raising prices and not paying claims while simultaneously limiting quantified regulatory and legal liability to an acceptable fraction of revenue.
I think US health insurance companies are very good at their jobs.
The difference between Canadian and US is two very different things. In Canada the FEDERAL government has near to 0 involvement in your healthcare unless you're either a native, live in a very remote place(aka resolute), or you're in the military. Each province is responsible for the healthcare in their province. The most that the feds get involved is ensuring that each province has the same basic level of care.
Now if you live in Quebec, you'll probably get more than someone in Ontario. That reason is simple, Quebec gets an ass load of bribe money to stay in the country, thus can spend an ass load more on people for various things. If you live in Alberta you'll probably see the same, because it's a very rich have province with lots of oil. Ontario up until a few years ago the same thing, now you're seeing a decrease in the level of non-basic care because all the money went poof when the manufacturing sector went away.
Now in the rare event that a province can't afford the care, Newfoundland for example you get equalization payments specific to healthcare. We like our healthcare in Canada, in general. But we sure the hell don't don't do single-payer system here. It's group, at the provincial level. I'll tell you this, my American friends you are fucking dense as a brick if you think Obamacare is a good idea. No one at the federal level should ever determine the level of care. The state or province must always determine it, as they're the best suited to know where and what should be built where.
After all...should some nameless bureaucrat decide a hospital gets built? Or should the person in your state? And the same goes for critical care centres and medical treatment. You *should* be up in arms. Remember the Canadian healthcare act at the federal level can fit on 1 sheet of paper.
Om, nomnomnom...
And try to get one of these digital hearing aids through the gummint. Ain't gonna happen.
It does here in Australia:
The Australian Department of Health and Ageing provides eligible Australian citizens and residents with a basic hearing aid free-of-charge, though recipients can pay a "top up" charge if they wish to upgrade to a hearing aid with more or better features. Maintenance of these hearing aids and a regular supply of batteries is also provided, on payment of a small annual maintenance fee.
A regulation-free medical industry is one where you get loads of useless homoeopathic and similar remedies, and there is no guarantee that they will work as described or be safe.
I almost didn't want to link to it because I'm sure there are a few people here that think this company is taking advantage of those with hearing loss since it's not an FDA approved device and they might report it and get them to remove this product. I wish people would read the comments. It's all people that needed a hearing aid but couldn't afford the FDA approved ones. Many people admit that it isn't quite as good as the FDA ones but for them it's a better choice. And that is what a free market is about. Government regulations is about a bunch of politicians getting paid by lobbyists to set the legal hurdle so high it grants them a defacto monopoly. It would be like BMW getting a lobbyist to get the politicians to pass a law saying all cars must be equipped with all of the devices on the 7 series. Would cars be better? Sure for those can afford them. But I don't want or need all of that stuff. I'm happy with the technology and features on a 8 year old Accord.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
If by "crappier results" you mean "the most advanced medicines and treatments" and "thousands of people fly to the US for surgeries that they can't get in their 'superior' country with government run health care", then sure - you're right.
Yet despite this, people on average die sooner here than most other developed countries. You have to look at bottom line results, nut just anecdotes about miracle treatments for a few lucky individuals. The bottom line here is: FAIL.
As you point out, our healthcare system looks like 4-star hotels in Cuba: only wealthy foreign tourists seem to be able to afford it.
The NHS has quite a wide range of hearing aids that they can prescribe depending on the type of hearing loss you have. You can buy privately as well and still be entitled to free ones from the NHS. They also provide batteries.
In the UK privately purchased hearing aids cost between £500 and £4000.
All of these posts about how your countries give hearing aids to elderly and poor is just rude. If the U.S. was a AAA country we would do it too. Showing off your wealth is lame.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Call me when you can euthanize grama because her surgery is too expensive.
You theory is that because euthanasia is available, surgery is less expensive? Huh?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)