Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: Why Are Hearing Aids So Expensive?

solune writes "You can get a tablet these days for a few hundred dollars, and laptops for a few hundred more. Gaming consoles, TVs, and smartphones are all available for under a thousand bucks. Yet, a decent hearing aid for my mom will go upwards of $3000! With ever-shrinking electronic components, better capabilities, and technological advancements, not to mention the rapidly increasing potential user base, I would think quality hearing aids should be coming in a lot cheaper than what we can find. Adding fuel to my fire is that a hearing aid will greatly improve my mom's life — not to mention the lives of millions of others out there. Currently, she suffers from frustration and isolation with having to ask people to 'speak up', and nodding her head to things her kids and grandkids say. We've tried the cheapies, and they're fraught with problems. So, can someone tell me why a hearing aid should be so expensive?"

46 of 629 comments (clear)

  1. Because insurance pays for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    'nuff said

    1. Re:Because insurance pays for them by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Informative

      Many insurance plans don't pay for them. Medicare doesn't pay for hearing aids unless the hearing loss is the aftereffect of an accident. They generally don't cover hearing tests either. Medicare and hearing aids.

    2. Re:Because insurance pays for them by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think you miss the point. When Joe Sixpack doesn't have to pay for Product X, he doesn't care whether Product X costs $10 or $10,000,000.

      Health insurers pass the cost on to employers, who have to keep paying the increased premiums to keep their employees happy. If Joe Sixpack had to pay for their own health insurance, then he would object when they doubled the premiums to cover those $10,000,000 products that could have been bought in a free market for $10.

    3. Re:Because insurance pays for them by Teese · · Score: 5, Informative

      Except, insurance (generally) doesn't cover them. Mine surely didn't.

      --
      "I'm a Genius!"*


      *Not an actual Genius
    4. Re:Because insurance pays for them by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My hearing aids were covered by my father's insurance (he works for the state, so great insurance) until I turned 21. Now I'm trying to figure out how to pay for my next pair because none of my employers since then have even had partial coverage for hearing aids. It's one of the frustrating gaps in most employer-offered insurances. My current pair were $4000, which includes cleaning every six months (not sure for how many years).

      I will say that hearing aid technology has improved at an impressive rate over the past 19 years that I've been wearing them, and costs of a low to mid-end hearing aid is about the same as it was in 1994 when I got my first pair, but inflation has gone up quite a bit since then - not to mention they're more comfortable and durable than ever.

    5. Re:Because insurance pays for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      embrace sells em for $700/ea at the high end. Don't think $2k/ea is reasonable. It's a gigantic crock of BS.
      www.embracehearing.com

      signed,
      hard of hearing anon.

    6. Re:Because insurance pays for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No. No, it doesn't. My sister is hearing impaired and we can find exactly *no* insurance plans that would cover hearing aids for her type of hearing loss. We found ONE plan that would cover hearing aids, but only if the child was under nine and the hearing loss was caused by leukemia.

      Consider this in the healthcare debate, because of the hearing aids that we were luckily able to save up and afford, my sister was able to only attend a few years of special ed and then was able to mainstream into a normal classroom, largely because the hearing aids allowed her to not have to learn sign language. This potentially saved the public school district a ton of money. It also saved the government a ton of money as she is now in college (to become an audiologist) instead of on disability.

    7. Re:Because insurance pays for them by halfEvilTech · · Score: 4, Informative

      the main downside to the HSA eligible plans is the high deductibles. There is a requirement that your minimum yearly deductible is $1000 to even qualify for the HSA. And often times it is even higher than that.

      Yes they are nice especially when your employer matches your contribution up to $xxx amount. I have had one for 2 years now, and while it does help mainly at the pharmacy it can be burdonsome around the start of the year when that high deductible kicks back in. Unless you managed to get some saved up over the later part of the year.

      other issue as to why hearing aids costs so much in the US. Once you add "medical" tag to it here you can instantly increase the price 10x.

    8. Re:Because insurance pays for them by vlm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If an uninsured dude yet collectible / aka non-judgement proof walks in, they'll probably get the full $350 booked as accounts receivable, then it goes to collections for 25 cents on the dollar for a net income of $87.50 to the Dr which is competitive with the insured pay rate.

      Another way to play it is put uninsured dude in accounts receivable as $350, then book a tax deductible $350 loss as a forgiven debt if no collections agency is dumb enough to buy the debt. The real loss is whatever providing the service actually cost, which is probably about half of $95 in your example unless they're operating a charity. So they "really" lost $45 or so of actual medical supplies and labor, not $350. But the $350 loss offsets $350 of income when it comes to tax time so they save perhaps 25% of $350 or whatever that could be as much as $100 tax reduction in exchange for actually losing $50 or so of labor and band aids. The IRS wants their revenue so uninsured dude gets 1099ed as a forgiven debt and gets to pay income tax on the implied income of $350, which for a retail clerk girlfriend with an uninsured broken arm was approximately zero because she made practically no money that year. As I recall it did prevent her from filing the 1040-EZ form and she had to use the 1040 or 1040A something about you can't have 1099 income while filing a EZ form, or at least that was the case in the early 90s. This was some time (decades) ago and the story is related thru a "woman doing taxes" filter so it may or may not be correct. Also her broken arm was an imaginary amount something like $20K not $350. The story originally came from a discussion of "I have to fill out extra paperwork for taxes because of my broken arm before I met you, so I won't get any tax return this year unlike you" type of discussion, leading to the above discoveries.

      The above explains why docs and hospitals tend to not really care "if you can pay or not" because either collections or semi-shady tax work lets them get about the same net income even if you never pay them a penny. There will be anecdotal situations where this doesn't work.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    9. Re:Because insurance pays for them by jemenake · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ok, so if I just pull some random numbers out of my ass... We have 100 people. 50 have insurance and 50 don't. If they sell the hearing aid for $3000, they sell 50 of them. If they sell it for $500 they sell 100. Which makes them more money?

      Exactly. In fact, remember those supply-and-demand lines from high-school economics. Basically, your revenue at any given price will be given by finding that price on the demand curve, finding the quantity that it gives you, and you multiply them. The visual way to show this is to make a square with the lower-left corner at (0,0) and the upper-right corner at some point on the demand curve. The area in that square is your revenue. But that is far from your maximum possible revenue. It turns out that, in theory, you could make revenue equal to all of the area under the demand curve. That whole triangle! Usually, that ends up being about 100% increase in revenue.

      The way you pull this off is you have to be able to charge $100 from the people who are willing to pay $100 but not $101. And you have to charge $250 from the people who are willing to pay $250 but not $251, etc. In other words, you charge everybody the most that they'll pay. The economics term for this is "price discrimination". Problem is, it's tough to charge different prices from different people. First off, you have the problem of being able to secretly offering different prices to different people. Second, you have the problem of figuring out who's willing to pay more. The internet has made the first problem a non-issue... until people caught Amazon doing it. Remember about 6-7 years ago when someone noticed that, if you went to buy a product on Amazon, and if you were using the same account that you previous used to buy 4 pairs of top-of-the-line Air Jordans, Amazon would quote you a higher price than if your account was used to but Sketchers? Turned out that Amazon was figuring out how "upscale" or how "trailer-park" you tended toward in your purchases, and they could figure out how much more they could squeeze out of you.

      An example which is a little closer to the hearing-aid insurance one is that of airline tickets. Ever noticed how it costs so much more to buy a round-trip ticket which does not stay over a weekend? Who would want to not stay over a weekend? Business people. Who's money are they spending? The company's. Are they going to aggressively price-shop or be willing to stay over the weekend for a better price? Nope. So, they can soak the business travelers for more money.

      With insurance, it's kinda the same deal. Doctors do have "cash" prices, which they offer to patients who lack insurance, but they can't get too crazy with the price disparity or it'll start looking like insurance fraud.

    10. Re:Because insurance pays for them by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't be a retard. There's nothing Randian about pointing out the effect that big insurance companies have on the market for medical devices. If people had to buy these things out of pocket exclusively, the economics would be totally different, and that's true regardless of your political outlook. As someone else here pointed out with airline tickets bought by business travelers, when people aren't spending their own money (and instead, spending their employer's or health insurance company's), they don't bother to count pennies like they do when they're spending out of their own bank account, even though the cumulative effect does affect them later on (through higher insurance premiums, lower salaries, etc.).

  2. I found a good explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    1. Re:I found a good explanation by ebuck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      on this silly site

      Don't worry, this topic deserves about three more submissions before even Slashdot deems it not worthy of a repeat.

      The electronics must be small, they mustn't be very heavy, and the must do something that is computationally expensive (signal isolation in a noisy background), combined with amplification, all in a custom fitting (to your ear) enclosure.

      On the other hand, you have people stating that a mass marketed device which is identical for a run of over 11 million last quarter, with ability to use bigger (lower cost) components, bought in bulk (by the millions) is cheap, so this custom device should be too.

      Basically they are expensive for all the reasons the article poster is ignoring, which reduces the article to "I want one cheaper, waahhhhaaahhh!!!"

  3. Simple Economics of Scale by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative
    From this source:

    About 2 to 4 of every 1,000 people in the United States are "functionally deaf," though more than half became deaf relatively late in life; fewer than 1 out of every 1,000 people in the United States became deaf before 18 years of age.

    However, if people with a severe hearing impairment are included with those who are deaf, then the number is 4 to 10 times higher. That is, anywhere from 9 to 22 out of every 1,000 people have a severe hearing impairment or are deaf. Again, at least half of these people reported their hearing loss after 64 years of age.

    Finally, if everyone who has any kind of "trouble" with their hearing is included then anywhere from 37 to 140 out of every 1,000 people in the United States have some kind of hearing loss, with a large share being at least 65 years old.

    So even at 140, even ignoring those that cannot be helped by hearing aids and those that cannot afford hearing aids, the truth is that far more than 140 out of 1,000 people buy the products you mentioned. If you move a higher volume, you can price them lower and approach their true cost as your design and overhead costs diminish with numbers. What's more is that "a laptop" will more or less work for me the same as it will work for you. We don't need to mold the laptop to put it in our ears or have it tuned to our needs.

    You also seem to overlook two factors: as electronics get smaller they get more expensive. The second part is that as electronics need to power themselves and get smaller they get even more expensive. And on top of that, my cell phone puts out a lot of heat. The kind of heat I would not want in my ear. So you have to consider that the battery must be small and must not dissipate tons of heat and so therefore the electronics must have a very low power draw. There's not much of a conspiracy to find here, it's an unfortunate reality that prevents someone from storming the market with the new better cheaper hearing aid (pending tech advancements).

    In my family, we look at chipping in to buy our elders hearing aids for presents, I know the nice ones are crazy expensive.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Simple Economics of Scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      From Anthony Watts web site supplying some technical info about hearing aids, in his words:
      I wear two ITC/CIC hearing aids with DSP processors built in. Let me tell you a little bit about why they are so expensive. The largest supplier of hearing aids in the USA is Starkey in Minneapolis. I’ve been to the factory, and have experienced the process from start to finish courtesy of the president of the company.
      1. Because hearing aids, especially BTE (behind the ear) and ITC/CIC (completely in the canal) types use a single cell 1.5 volt battery, which can drop as low as 1.3 volts through its useful operational life, the amplifier circuits must be of extremely low power consumption and low voltage. The only chip material that works well for this is germanium, which has a diode junction forward voltage of ~ 0.3V as opposed to the ubiquitous silicon used in consumer electronics which has an ~ 0.7V forward voltage. While germanium was once very common for transistors and some early integrated circuits, it has fallen out of favor in the microelectronics hearing aid world. There are only a handful of sources and companies now that work with germanium, thus the base price is higher due to this scarcity. You can’t just take an off the shelf silicon chip/transistor and put it in these aids. Each one is custom designed in germanium. [Added: power consumption is a big issue also, aids are expected to last a few days on a single battery, if most of the power is being used to overcome the forward diode voltage, it gets lost as heat instead of being applied to amplification use.]
      2. The process of properly fitting a hearing aid is labor intensive. Custom ear molds must be created from latex impressions, and these need to be fitted for comfort. A small variance or burr can mean the difference between a good fitting mold and one that is painful to wear. Additionally, if the mold doesn’t maintain a seal to the inner ear properly the hearing aid will go into oscillatory feedback. Sometimes it takes 2 or 3 attempts to get the fitting right.
      3. On the more expensive aids, labor is involved in doing a spectral hearing loss analysis of the user’s hearing problem, so that the aid doesn’t over-amplify in the wrong frequencies. Just throwing in a simple linear amplifier is destructive to the remaining hearing due to the sound pressure levels involved.
      4. Construction of aids is done by hand by technicians, especially with the popular ITC (in the canal) aids. At the Starkey company, a technician is assigned to create the aid from the ear mold, fit the chips and microphone/receiver and battery compartment, and connect it all with 32 gauge wire and make sure it all fits in the ear mold. This can be a real challenge, because human ear canals aren’t often straight, but bend and change diameter. Imagine a room with a hundred technicians sitting at microscopes assembling these. Each is a custom job. There’s no mass production possible and thus none of the savings from it.
      5. After the aid is created, then there’s the fitting. This process is also hands on. Getting the volume and the audio spectrum match right is a challenge, and audiologists have to have chip programming systems onsite to make such adjustments withing the limits of the aid. Sometimes aids are rejected because the user isn’t comfortable with the fitting, and then the aids go back to the factory for either a new ear mold, new electronics, or both.
      6. There’s a lot of loss in the hearing aid business. Patients don’t often adapt well, especially older people. There may be two or three attempts at fitting before a success or rejection. Patients only pay when the fitting is successful. If it is not, the company eats the effort and the cost of labor and materials. Imagine making PC’s by hand, sending them out to users, and then having them come back to have different cases or motherboards or drives fitted two or three times, and software adjusted until the customer is happy with it. Imagine

    2. Re:Simple Economics of Scale by time961 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      1) And the reason that hearing aids can't use 3V lithium battery technology is? Seem like there might be some benefit there, especially in view of the impressively low-power things that can be done with small-geometry silicon when speed isn't the main issue.

      2) This is a meaningful cost. A library of semi-custom versions might be a plausible intermediate step. As might laser scanning and 3-D printing.

      3) Why can't analysis of the loss can be completely automated? "Press + if this sound is louder than the last one"

      4) Flex PCBs (even when each one is fully custom) and 0105 components seem like a plausible solution. Automated assembly has come a long way since the invention of 32 gauge wire. Open your iPhone and count the grains of sand (resistors and capacitors) soldered to the PCB. Sure, they've always done it by hand with microscopes, but while that was a sensible approach 30 years ago, there are better approaches now.

      5) This is a meaningful cost, too. But again, there's a lot of "tuning" that could be done by interaction with an automated system.

      6) This is a meaningful cost. No obvious way to mitigate it, given the elderly user communicate it.

      7) This isn't a cost, it's just a complaint that modern electronics isn't in the picture.

      What I hear is "this is the way we've always done it, and we can't imagine a non-evolutionary approach to improvement". Is it really possible that a 3V supply (which would allow use of a $5 2mm^2 32nm-process DSP) would be the kind of disruptive change that would make hearing aids cheap enough for everyone?

      Probably not, because the economic argument is unimpeachable: as long as insurance pays for it, and thus eliminates price pressure, there's no motivation to charge much less (10% off for cash, yeah, what a deal). This isn't even value-based pricing (think Mac Pro :-) ), it's structural monopoly pricing. As long as that's in the picture, there's no hope for a transition to cost-based pricing.

  4. ...the world of medical tech... by raydobbs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They need to be able to have FDA testing, certification, independent verification of testing, quality assurance and all the paperwork hell -that- involves. The certification needs certifiers to certify that the certification has certificates on the certifiers to do certifications and so on... There is a MASSIVE paperwork rats-nest involved in making ANYTHING that used in healthcare.

    It's why healthcare spending is rapidly outstripping the US economy, to be completely honest.

    1. Re:...the world of medical tech... by hawguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But is certification really necessary in this case? If a company just made a device to insert in your ear (like an earbud or headset) which amplified sound in a particular way, that wouldn't be much different from a Bluetooth headset or a set of earbuds...I don't see how they could be prohibited from selling them, though perhaps with a different name. Insurance might not pay for them, but if you insurance covers a hering aid then what's the problem?

      If I were going to wear a sound amplifier in my ear all day every day, I'd like some assurance that it's been tested and that it isn't outputting such high sound levels that it's killing off whatever amount of hearing I have left.

      Just because it's not implanted inside the body doesn't mean that it can't cause harm.

  5. Justification by hawguy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here's an article that attempts to justify the cost:

    http://www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/info-05-2011/hearing-aids-cost.html

    Overall cost — $3,600

    Costs for the manufacturer:

    Materials — $360

    Research — $1,080

    Other retailer costs:

    Rent/overhead — $450

    Testing/diagnostic machines — $288

    Licenses/insurance — $108

    Salaries — $540

    Marketing — $270

    Continuing education/training — $180

    Potential profit for the retailer (pretax) — $324

    Approximate product cost for retailer — $1,440

    I don't know how accurate it is, but I can believe that the actual parts cost of a hearing aid is around $350.?

  6. Assembly and customization by necro81 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Tablets, computers, etc., all can be machine-assembled, or assembled by half-way trained manual laborers in a factories that can achieve high throughput by economies of scale, division of labor, etc. And although they are densely packed, personal electronics are still, for the most part, macroscopic. The components in a hearing aid, by contract, have many miniscule components that are assembled very carefully, by hand, by skilled laborers using loupes and microscopes - more akin to watchmaking than assembly-lines. As such, the assembly labor has resisted outsourcing. Plus, the number of units being assembled by any one company (there are many players in the market) aren't large enough to support well-oiled assembly lines running 24-7. Finally, most hearing aids have some amount of customization to each patient (ear-insert moldings for some models, equalization tuning for others), which further increases cost.

    Others have mentioned the addition cost associated with it being a medical device, which is not insignificant. Lastly, because many hearing aids are paid for by insurance, rather than out-of-pocket, there is less consumer-driven pressure to reduce costs.

  7. "Medical and Military Make Money" by droptop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The same reason that between myself, my insurance and Medicare AirWay Oxygen has been paid over $26,000 over the past seven years for a machine that costs $2,000; The pain in the ass to get FDA approval (both real and imagined) for a "medical device" prevents many would-be manufacturers from entering the market, and none of the players wants to ruin their golden goose by starting a price war. We used to say the same thing about military equipment when I was an Army Mechanic... In 1982 I couldn't understand at all how the little M151A2 "jeep" cost over $75,000 a pop!! Especially since the assembly lines have been running since 1968 and a lot of the expensive magnesium pieces had been replaced by steel. The adage is the same: "Paint it green and quadruple your profit" or "Paint it white and put FDA on it and quintuple your profits"!

    --
    change it.
  8. There are cheaper hearing aid providers by Mindragon · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    Just add {In Space!} to anything.
  9. Because they can. by MrLizard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For pretty much the same reason that a small piece of soft foam as a filter for my CPAP -- not magic foam made from unicorn testicles, just bog-standard foam, about 2" square -- is billed to my insurance company at 25.00.(Seriously, due to a paperwork snafu, at one point, I got the itemized bill instead of my insurance company getting it, and it's ridiculous what they charge.) Because they can. (My insurance company, I'm sure, just laughs and pays them a buck, at most, but having the item be "worth" 25.00 is probably a lot of use to accountants at every stage in the transaction.)

    Why did a simple ultrasound of my heart, performed by a technician who was not a doctor, not a nurse, just someone who'd completed "Be an ultrasound technician!" at night school, and which took about 15 minutes, cost over $1000.00? No reason. It's a random number. They bill the insurance company, or the government, depending on if you have private health insurance or medicare/medicaid, and then the people they bill pay whatever amount THEY decide to pay for an ultrasound. This doesn't work, of course, if the hospital has to bill YOU -- you have to pay what they ask. Sucks to be you. Or me, when I didn't have insurance.

    It's because there's no market control; there's no shopping around; there's no way anyone can (legally) just start making hearing aids and having them sold at Wal-Mart. If eyeglasses followed the same rules, you couldn't buy even a pair of reading glasses without going to a licensed optometrist and paying 250.00, minimum. As it is, I can go to the aforementioned Wal-Mart and try on a few quickly, then pick whatever I like best and walk out having paid less than I'd pay to go to the movies.

  10. Regulated medical device by wiedzmin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yep. No market pressures to lower the price. Sucks if you don't have or can't get insurance.

    Am I the only one that read this as two completely contradicting statements? Surely, you must see the logic that if there are people forced into paying out of pocket to hear, that there is some market pressure to make lower priced hearing aids!

    Not as long as they're a minority. And even then - think about it this way - if you have a 100 patients needing one and only half have insurance... would you still rather sell 50 hearing aids at $3,000 each or 100 at $500 each? Plus it's not like some startup can easily flood the market with cheap alternatives either - hearing aids are Class I regulated medical devices... I can only imagine the amount of bureaucracy that must be involved to obtaining that classification.

    --
    Bow before me, for I am root.
    1. Re:Regulated medical device by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Informative
      That, and today's hearing aids don't just simply amplify external sound. They are filled with a great deal of very sophisticated audio analysis, and digital sound processing...they have different modes depending on the settings, for instance modes to help with being in a restaurant, to help cut the background noise out....modes for conversational, modes for entertainment like watching a movie with voice and sound...etc.

      I see them now too, that hook up with bluetooth to ones cell phone to make talking on those easier.

      There's quite a bit of high tech audio processing in these things...and with the research and all, and lets face it...proprietary, patented algorithms and the like....it isn't cheap to make a quality hearing aid these days. They're packing a lot more than just amplification in these tiny units.

      One important step is...get with a GOOD audiologist that you can work with...for testing and picking out the ones with the features that work best for you or those that need them.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:Regulated medical device by Sir_Sri · · Score: 4, Informative

      - hearing aids are Class I regulated medical devices... I can only imagine the amount of bureaucracy that must be involved to obtaining that classification.

      That's pretty much the only thing you've said that matters. Well that and the fact that most of them are at least partially customized to the patient. Unlike some products which are significantly cheaper in canada because of collective bargaining and our healthcare system refusing to waste money on billing the way the US does, hearing aids are about the same here.

      To sell any medical device it goes through layers of scrutiny. My grandfather in india had a hearing aid where he could hear people fine, but he couldn't hear phones. (I doubted his honesty of hearing fine, but he could at least understand what I was saying from another room with a north american accent speaking english even though he spoke hindi as a first language). But it never worked over the phone. Bizarre. Shit like that wouldn't ever be tolerated by a north american consumer, or by a north american insurance system (government or private).

      It also depends very much on what problem you have. Some of the cheap hearing aids do work fine if you have one type of hearing loss but not another. If you need a bone conduction hearing aid (Baha branded) you're looking at 3grand, if you need a cochlear speech processor you're taking 5k or more. The term 'hearing aid' covers fairly simplistic devices to very sophisticated ones. If you have a rare or complicated problem expect rare, expensive solutions.

    3. Re:Regulated medical device by Grieviant · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Rubbish. I'd be willing to bet that they're using small variations on garden variety filtering algorithms that have been available in the open literature for many years. It's difficult to believe that they've come up with super-duper-proprietary stuff that's more complex than what you would see in video/audio processing, communications signal processing, etc. Patented does not mean better.

    4. Re:Regulated medical device by aurizon · · Score: 5, Informative

      If a persons hearing in each ear is charted, frequency versus sensitivity you fine a lot of variation in people with hearing loss at various frequencies caused by various legal and not legal drugs, loud music, impulse noise from Guns of jets etc. The hearing aid is then programmed to boost/cut various frequencies to get as close as possible to the natural ear with no deficiencies. They have built in equalization. The better the resolution of this equalization and the better the job the audiologists do and the better hearing aid purchased = best results. The hearing aid itself has a base cost of about $50, plus fees to program each one, test with the person in a quiet room, fit to the ear drum shape etc, all adds cost. Low power, more efficient units cost more = last longer on smaller battery

      That said, there are many ripoffs out there, and many locked up distribution channels by people who want to sell a $50 item for $2000. Hearing loss forums can help, but they get a lot of manufacturers shills in there, takes a while to know the crooks.

    5. Re:Regulated medical device by itsdapead · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That, and today's hearing aids don't just simply amplify external sound. They are filled with a great deal of very sophisticated audio analysis, and digital sound processing...

      So is the cheapest non-smart cellphone on the market, or your $100 noise-cancelling headphones... and although the market isn't as large, we're still talking about something that almost everybody will need as their bodies pass their sell-by date.

      ...and if you're actually paying for the Audiologist's time rather than the hardware (the most reasonable explanation of the price) maybe that should be made a bit more transparent.

      Methinks its partly a hangover from the days when hearing aids were at the bleeding edge of miniaturised electronics.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    6. Re:Regulated medical device by solidraven · · Score: 4, Informative

      Do you realise how much it "costs" to configure a digital filter? The answer is, next to nothing.
      Programs like MATLAB can calculate the necessary coefficients on the fly. Any skilled engineer can write a program to convert a given frequency and phase characteristics to a list of filter coefficients. Even if you want to do fancy things like lattice filters it's still not very complicated as most of these are designed by converting the direct form of the filter using a recursive algorithm. Again something a computer can do.
      The actual cost I'd say comes from the size of the hardware combined with a good battery. If you wish to miniaturize it'll cost you big time. And quantities in the hundreds of thousands aren't quite enough to warrant the cost of miniaturization as these sort of things will take some custom hardware. Mask fabrication and set-up costs for a run of wafers; well it isn't cheap.

    7. Re:Regulated medical device by Cow+Jones · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Patented does not mean better.

      But it does mean more expensive.

      --

      Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
    8. Re:Regulated medical device by JoeMerchant · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In the old days, they'd make 'em with cheap components with 5% or more resistance / capacitance variation, then test them when they came off the line and sort them into bins for "prescription" filter characteristics.

    9. Re:Regulated medical device by aurizon · · Score: 5, Informative

      Familiar with duplexer tuning, however a hearing aid is mono-directional, and as solidraven (1633185) says, determining the gain versus frequency profile should be quick. Frequencies that have gone fully deaf - no cochlear hairs left, will probably not be compensatable with an external device, we can directly stimulate the nerves with a cochlear implant, after which the person learns to hear anew. Here is a simple youtube about it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmNpP2fr57A, the comments are also of interest. This search is also useful http://tinyurl.com/cq8bz3w.

      It is my understanding that you can buy the programmable chip that is a complete processor heart of a hearing aid from many makers. Here is another search on that topic.
      http://tinyurl.com/cwcuwuq.

    10. Re:Regulated medical device by aurizon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, the chart of sensitivity versus frequency can be fully automatic, but it is usually done manually so the fee can be maxed. I would like to see a machine, like blood pressure in Walmart where you wear headphones and respond to various sounds at various frequencies at lower and lower intensities until they have mapped your profile. It should take 2 minutes or so, depending on the number of data points wanted, with more data = more time = better profile.
      Like the BP machines, the next step is to a doctor, but with hearing profile chart from the machine. you would be able to send that profile to a number of makers and get quotes. Since this is fully external, it should be OK, but some specialists will fight tooth and nail to "protect the public" to outlaw it. In 1950 most highrises had an elevator operator, you entered, told him your floor, and he pushed that button for you. There were endless strikes by the elevator operators union who said thousands would die (LOL) unless we keep our jobs and by the way, we want more $$. Same with the projectionists union. http://tinyurl.com/dx5wcoo
        Those oxes gored make the loudest bellowing, and these audiology doctor oxes have lobby groups.

  11. Re:Because insurance pays for them -- WRONG! by Xyverz · · Score: 5, Informative

    MOST insurance policies do NOT cover hearing aides. As a person who's been wearing hearing aides for the last 30+ years, I can guarantee you this. Only if you work for a much larger corporation with a VERY nice benefits package, will you find an insurance policy that will cover your hearing aides - or even a portion of it.

    My last pair cost me just shy of $4000. I paid out of pocket since my insurance at the time didn't cover this expense. This is, to date, the second biggest expense I've ever paid, after my car. They were top of the range 11 years ago. I can buy an equivalent model now with the same features from Costco's hearing center now for about $500 each.

    Maybe your mum doesn't need the top of the range aides? Try looking for some with fewer features - say only six channels and two or three programs each (one program for normal environment, one for noisy environment, and one for telephone use if she should so desire). You'll save a ton of money.

    The other reason why hearing aides are usually so expensive is that not everybody has the same ear shape. All in-the-ear aides are made from a custom mold, which does increase the cost. My dad recently got a behind-the-ear pair that didn't include a custom mold. The tips fit into the canal, similar to a pair of newer earbud headphones. (They still cost him $1200 for the pair though.)

    Your mileage may vary. I highly suggest you shop around. Just remember though - you get what you pay for, and always buy the insurance plan on the li'l buggers.

  12. Re:WHAT? by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, not exactly a supply and demand issue, unless you are talking about the supply of Funds available.

    As soon as you can get a tablet or cell phone covered by medical insurance the price of those items will
    go thru the roof as well.

    In some markets, the price of goods expands to absorb the available funds, especially when artificial
    barriers to entry keep competition to a minimum.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  13. Re:WHAT? by Malties · · Score: 4, Informative

    Just like college tuition. The easier it is to fund an education the more expensive it gets.

  14. Re:WHAT? by jmorris42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or housing. Flood the market with cheap financing and a governement directive to put everyone into a mortaged home and prices went on a moonshot. Right up until they didn't.

    Just like the other reply already mentioned, college tuition and low interest government loans are again creating a moonshot effect.

    And you are almost certainly correct on the same effect causing hearing aids coverable by insurance/medicare/etc. to be priced like nobody actually has to pay... because if you are asking the price you are paying for it yourself and realize that if you have to ask, you can't afford it.

    Happens every time but we fall for the same trick over and over. Intelligence seems to be in short supply.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  15. Re:Class 1 Regulated medical device by BBF_BBF · · Score: 5, Informative
    A Class 1 Medical device (the lowest classification) requires very little "red tape" compared to the Class 3 devices (life sustaining) that I work with.

    Definitely there's more paperwork involved with a Class 1 medical device than say a DVD player, but if both manufacturers follow good management and development practices, it's not really that much more paperwork.

  16. Re:WHAT? by icebike · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just like college tuition. The easier it is to fund an education the more expensive it gets.

    I was going to go there, but the last time I did on Slashdot I was immediately pounced on and pummeled by people who work for universities and colleges. Apparently I had gored some sacred ox.

    Finding any historical cost per credit hour data was fairly hard, schools don't really want you to see this.
    I finally found some for the University of Nebraska, Kearney, a state funded school, where a 2011-12 credit hour costs $168. Back in 1964-5 this cost was 9 bucks per credit hour.

    Using the Dollar Times calculator $9.00 in 1964 had the same buying power as $65.73 in 2012. So, instead of charging $65.73/ch, UNK is now charging$168, or 2.5 time the inflation equivalent per credit hour.

    Kearney isn't alone in this, Central Michigan is actually worse.
    They charged $85.50/ch in 1993, which had the same buying power as $135.98 in 2012, but they are charging $358/ch or 2.6 times inflation.

    Admittedly, state funding levels may have changed, and more money may now be raised by tuition and fees with less tax dollar input.
    Its hard to know, without digging thru the University budgets over the years.

    But in any event, I suspect that you are correct, that the cost of college expands to absorb the available funds.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  17. Re:WHAT? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oddly enough, that joke is actually relevant. There are really two different types of hearing aids:
    1. Volume-based hearing aids which are so cheap now that they're sold for $10 on chinese websites, and you could build one yourself for less than $3 worth of parts.
    2. Frequency adjust hearing aids- these are actually tiny computers that slightly shift the frequency of the waveform for people who have frequency-specific hearing disorders. The cost for them is about $500 base, plus a couple of weeks of software engineering to tune them to the INDIVIDUAL User. It is the second type that the original author's mother needs, and yes, in a way it is a supply and demand problem as *each unit* (even in a pair) has to be tuned to the disability of the individual ear.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  18. Re:WHAT? by jmorris42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > You can't blame the government for these scandals when it is the banks...

    Yes I can. Because I know who drove those policies. Freddie and Fannie along with Congress and Presidents from Carter to Bush II. The insane push for 'affordable housing' and the idea that renting == bad, mortgage == good. They looked at stats that showed homeowners to have several socially desirable qualities and confused cause and effect in an epic fail for the ages.

    The banks were in a no-win scenario so they cheated.

    The government was demanding they make an ever growing percentage of their loans to politically preferred customers regardless of ability to repay. But it was ok because if you just made sure they could probably pay for the first year you could push the paper off on Freddie or Fannie and it was all going to be good. Because otherwise the banks wouldn't have done something that stupid regardless of how much political and regulatory pressure was applied to them. But then Freddie and Fannie had to do something with all that dodgy paper and so did the banking industry. Hmm, what to do, what to do. Mortgage backed securities! Except most people started figuring out the game of hot potatoe (nod to Quayle..) going on and started hedging those with derivatives thinking they were so clever. But when it ALL goes boom at once there ain't nobody can collect on those contracts because everybody gets boned at the same time. Short version, things that can't go on forever don't.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  19. Re:WHAT? by tiqui · · Score: 5, Insightful

    2. Frequency adjust hearing aids- these are actually tiny computers that slightly shift the frequency of the waveform for people who have frequency-specific hearing disorders. The cost for them is about $500 base, plus a couple of weeks of software engineering to tune them to the INDIVIDUAL User. It is the second type that the original author's mother needs, and yes, in a way it is a supply and demand problem as *each unit* (even in a pair) has to be tuned to the disability of the individual ear.

    Bogus argument

    We have these cool things called "algorithms" and "parameters" which we implement in these things called "computers". A generic hearing aid could easily be made and the customer could sit in an automated booth at wallmart, listen to some automated test sounds, give feedback to the booth computer and the booth computer could tweak the parameters for an individual hearing aid, flash the parameters, and provide the "custom" hearing aids for the user to checkout. If you REALLY wanted to get exotic and custom, you could have the booth tell the user to put-in the new aid, re-test, and tweak the values and re-flash the parameters before sending him/her to the checkout. This is the sort of innovation that would have appeared years ago if hearing aids had never been classed as "medical devices". This is like the guys who supply a bunch of uber-expensive "medical equipment" to docs and hospitals trying to explain why they charge so much for a slow two-trace oscilliscope with a different label on the face and some slightly different firmware...

  20. Re:WHAT? by jmorris42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Replying to myself.... Got distracted and hit submit, Forgetting to explicitly tie what I wrote to your chief complaint and I know that if I don't no prog has the reasoning skills to make the leap. (by definition, otherwise they wouldn't be a prog anymore)

    > Except people were encouraged to take out second mortgages to pay off their bills, take trips, do some property improvement.

    That was a obvious side effect of the policies I noted above. Ram a huge influx of new demand into the housing market and prices shoot up. Combine with the Fed pushing interest rates far below market in a different case of the goverment meddling and you get what happened. Home values didn't just go up, it was a moonshot, cash out refi very attractive and banks more than willing to write the paper and hand it off, making their money off the up front fees. And if thought they were a bit too willing to take risks when they only suspected they were 'too big to fail' just wait, now it is written into law.

    Some of us knew better. I'm not underwater. In fact I'm not even mortgaged anymore.

    > When a bank approves 40 applications without looking at what their
    > financial situation is or their income, that is a huge problem.

    Yes it is. Now be bold enough to ask the right question. Why would they do something that dumb? Answer: It wasn't dumb because they got the fees up front and the taxpayers (through Freddie/Fannie) got the bill. They were playing the game by the rules Congress wrote.

    > College tuition isn't going up because of easy loans, most states have raised tuition due to the financial crisis.

    And why did they do that? Because they can. Because pretty much anyone qualifies for low interest loans underwritten by the Federal Government. Tuition has been going up faster than inflation for generations. Just like healthcare. Both for the same reason. Before the big crunch tuition was so insane the taxpayers were kicking in along with the grants and loans. But where the money comes from doesn't change the fact that the number of dollars per pupil being spent is going up, up and up. Because it can.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  21. Re:WHAT? by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now, I doubt that the problem with affordable education is simply a shifting of funding from the state to the individual

    I'm not so sure.

    Just looking at round bald numbers from the ten year interval of 1999 to 2009 you can see that Student Tuition at Central Michigan has grown 2.6 times, while the total budget has only grown 1.7 times. And state funding has held steady over those years.

    Bottom line Figures for 1999 show Tuition totaling $79,762,133.
    Bottom Line Figures for 2009 show Tuition totaling $214,308,670
    Tuition grew to 2.6 times the 1999 values.

    State Funding was $79,796,415 in 1999 and $80,064,200 in 2009, a virtual wash.
    Total revenue was $227,472,170 in 1999 and $397,036,721 in 2009 or 1.7 times.

    This is without regard to the total number of students, but the fact that Tuition increase of 2.6 times matches so closely the Cost Per Credit hour growth of 2.6
    would suggest that the enrollment was not dramatically higher, and this is born out Here where 2002 undergrad enrollment was 17k, and 2011 enrollment was 19k.

    (Total compensation (wages) increased by 1.6 times over that interval. It seems the revenue isn't all flowing into faculty pockets)

    So Without becoming a CPA, and chasing every penny, its clear that the student out of pocket expenses have grown at a rate vastly higher than the University budget as a whole. The vast majority of the expansion in the budget is from tuition.

    The cost of the of a college education has expanded to absorb the available student loan money.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  22. Re:WHAT? by Paracelcus · · Score: 4, Informative

    Even more "Bogus" in that you can get the SAME Siemens #2000.00 hearing aid (US) in Singapore for $180.00 (US).

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd