In any event, I’m doing some checking for you.

Our now 3 year old who also got the hearing aids was doing wonderfully in the first 6 weeks gaining so many words, but then he figured out how to get the battery out and swallowed one. We had to cut back on use to being only when an adult could supervise. He lost all of his words shortly after we are still in the process of getting him back into full time use, and after 6 months of speech therapy he is almost where he was after the first 6 weeks of use. The sad part is, even after all the growth that our children have shown in speech, education, and the obvious genetic link, our audiologist told me this last Monday that she wished she never perscribed the aids! I was in absolute shock- could not believe what I was hearing! even after she had witnessed all the benefit and improvement in speech! I don’t know what to do, we worked SO hard for them! I wish that Audiologists would present the information and leave it up to the parents to decide what is right for their children- and in the case of delayed speech, H.A.’s should ALWAYS be an option!

I truly am sorry I missed the e-mail with your comment; but I’m glad we connected via e-mail!

Will you please email me? I have a quick question I would like to ask you.

My best,

Jace

Dan Schwartz,
Editor, The Hearing Blog
Follow The Hearing Blog on Facebook

Send me a Friend request on Facebook for my presence for Hearing & Deafness discussions

What’s more, since you’re a fellow Hearing Aid Professional, I can show you numerically in this graph what the improvement will bring:

Also, when you say “cortical tests” can you please define it, i.e. do you mean in the 8-to-80 mSec time window?

Hope that Dr. Schafer will find enough volunteers. I know there are many more people like me out there.

Enjoy the weekend! Johanna

The problem we have here is the State hearing aid dispensing and audiologist licensing boards, and consumer complaints. The Very Last Thing that a dispenser or audiologist wants to happen is a complaint to their governing licensing board for misconduct… And in many (if not all) States, fitting a hearing aid to a minimal hearing loss, i.e. where there isn’t a real need, can be grounds for disciplinary action — And it is this rational fear that holds back many Hearing Aid Professionals from fully addressing the patient needs, leaving them frustrated & still in the lurch~

You raise a number of important issues here, but in a rush to criticize hearing healthcare providers, you’re missing the point of Dr. Kochkin’s comment and oversimplifying a very complex issue surrounding hearing aid acceptance. My experience as an audiologist has never been to turn someone away who had a communication problem because their audiogram didn’t match some predetermined definition of hearing loss. Much more often, we see individuals with significant hearing losses, are excellent audiological candidates, who do not want to use amplification. Dr. Kochkin’s comment was that many individuals with hearing loss do not experience a communication problem despite having mild hearing loss, so we probably shouldn’t assume that they are people who could benefit from hearing aids and just aren’t using them. To put it another way, the barrier to amplification here is not the provider or their assessment technique, but the cost of devices and the patient’s motivation. Audiologists should do more advanced testing as you suggest, but this point is lost in your attempt to shoot the messenger. You’re suggesting that hearing healthcare providers don’t want to sell hearing aids, and that’s not likely to be a very successful business model.

Your post already has some Pro-ASL folks focusing on this research where it indicates that deaf babies brain are not the same as hearing baby’s brain thus the implication is that it is ridiculous to try and make deaf babies as equal to hearing babies in area of CI/AVT.

As I shared on my post:

The study provides critical decision-making information for parents who opt for cochlear implants for their deaf infants.

What we have seen floating around here and there regarding cochlear implant failures are the reason why the Pro-ASL advocates need to understand this research that came out.

There are many reason why a child/infant with CI might not have achieved the desired result that parents expect from a CI. The critical factors are the age of implantation and the Auditory-Verbal Therapy (AVT) that follows it, among other factors.

There are parents who think that once an infant or a child is implanted, the rest will take care of itself. But, that is not true. This is one of the most common reason why there are failures.

to see more, click: http://wp.me/pises-uF

Can you cover the cochlear recall and ongoing problems with the freedom implants? I haven’t seen anything on your blog about this and it seems like a major story???

[Editors' note: The Envoy Esteem is a fully implanted hearing aid; and will be the subject for an upcoming Hearing Blog article. DLS]

Actually, although almost all of the TIA member companies are really on the ball for hearing aid compatibility, we still need FCC regulations dictating technical standards because of Apple: They are the most deaf-UNfriendly corporation in America — I have a whole litany of complaints; but that is the subject for a separate Hearing Blog article. But, for just one relevant example, Apple received a record fine from the FCC over their iPhone shenanigans. From Patently Apple:

Apple Gets knuckles Rapped with FCC Fine

On December 2, 2009, a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture was made public against Apple Inc. by Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief Spectrum Enforcement Division of the FCC under file number EB-09-SE-152. According to the FCC document “Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules requires handset manufacturers to file hearing aid compatibility status reports under revised rules initially on January 15, 2009 (covering the six month period ending December 31, 2008) and then annually beginning July 15, 2009. Apple did not file the report covering the six month period ending December 31, 2008 until June 3, 2009, nearly 5 months after the January 15, 2009 due date. Accordingly, we find that Apple failed to timely file the hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of the requirements set forth in Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules.” Additionally, the FCC documents state that “We conclude under this standard that Apple is apparently liable for forfeiture for its failure to timely file the required hearing aid compatibility status report in apparent willful violation of the requirements set forth in Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Rules.” The FCC, however, did find “that downward adjustment to the $6,000 base forfeiture amount to $5,000 is warranted based on Apple’s demonstrated good faith effort.” A major portion of the FCC document is enclosed in this report for verification purposes.

Introduction

In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”), we find that Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) apparently willfully violated the wireless handset hearing aid compatibility status report filing requirements set forth in Section 20.19(i)(1) of the Commission’s Rules (“Rules”). For this apparent violation, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000).

Background

In the 2003 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, the Commission adopted several measures to enhance the ability of individuals with hearing disabilities to access digital wireless telecommunications. The Commission established technical standards that digital wireless handsets must meet to be considered compatible with hearing aids operating in acoustic coupling and inductive coupling (telecoil) modes.

The Commission further established, for each standard, deadlines by which manufacturers and service providers were required to offer specified numbers or percentages of digital wireless handsets per air- interface that are compliant with the relevant standard if they did not come under the de minimis exception. In February 2008, as part of a comprehensive reconsideration of the effectiveness of the hearing aid compatibility rules, the Commission released an order that, among other things, adopted new compatible handset deployment benchmarks beginning in 2008.

3. In order to monitor the availability of these handsets, the Commission initially required manufacturers and digital wireless service providers to report every six months on efforts toward compliance with the hearing aid compatibility requirements for the first three years of implementation (May 17, 2004, November 17, 2004, May 17, 2005, November 17, 2005, May 17, 2006 and November 17, 2006), and then annually thereafter through the fifth year of implementation (November 19, 2007 and November 17, 2008). In its 2008 Hearing Aid Compatibility First Report and Order, the Commission extended these reporting requirements with certain modifications on an open ended basis, beginning January 15, 2009. The Commission also made clear that these reporting requirements apply to carriers that fit within the de minimus exception.

4. Apple failed to timely file the required report for the period July 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008, filing it on June 3, 2009, nearly five months after the deadline of January 15, 2009. Apple timely filed the required report for the period January 1, 2009 through June 30, 2009 on July 15, 2009. On September 16, 2009, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (“WTB”) referred Apple’s apparent violation of the hearing aid compatibility reporting requirements to the Enforcement Bureau for action.

As for mentioning it, let me chew on this overnight: I try to keep The Hearing Blog content tightly focused.

For the wrap-up of the 2011 Convention, please see Smashing Success: HLAA Convention 2011

I hope that I’m not the cheeky ONE now

I came across http://thehearingblog.com and wondered whether you might be interested in mentioning my blog dedicated to “English Speaking” up there?

It is located here –> http://www.englishspeaking.org

Thanks for looking into it!

Sincerely,
Anthea Sapon

To my knowledge you were not part of the organising team for the event and had no part in any of the communications regarding the loop systems, so you have no knowledge of what we were asked to do. There is no basis for making your accusations or insinuations, so please don’t continue.

If you plan to sell your electrical equipment in the United States, I strongly recommend you get your products certified by Underwriters Laboratories: If there is a fire in any facility that has your gear installed, your firm is on the hook for massive damages, especially if there are any injuries or worse…

Also, your reply 5 does not hold water: You knew the schedule, and knew the rooms would be split after the Saturday night banquet. So, are you pleading incompetence in setting up the system?