How Do Insurance Companies Get Away With Calling HA's a Cosmetic Thing?

D

Doug5

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
881
Reaction score
0
We should pass legislation through congress to stop them from doing that.
 
Doug5 said:
We should pass legislation through congress to stop them from doing that.
Click to expand...

what saddens me is that we EVEN had to pass the law for them to say it's not? it's sad... makes you wonder why we have too many laws.
 
Jiro said:
what saddens me is that we EVEN had to pass the law for them to say it's not? it's sad... makes you wonder why we have too many laws.
Click to expand...

Off topic.

Does your dog ever get tired of running?? :lol:

Anyways, back to the op,

Sadly.

It is like saying eye glasses are cosmetic.
 
Babyblue said:
Off topic.

Does your dog ever get tired of running?? :lol:

Anyways, back to the op,

Sadly.

It is like saying eye glasses are cosmetic.
Click to expand...

no. He's a Domestic Dissent hunter. :cool2:
 
I hope the situation gets better but right now, a hearing aid is NOT durable medical equipment as is the CI. This language is how they get out from having to pay for hearing aids.
 
Yeah, I agree. My insurance said it was cosmetic as well. Just doesn't make any sense to me. I was really upset about it. But I got my aids $5k later :( To the person above how is a HA not durable medical equipment? I understand a CI and the process of it but if I didn't have hearing aids I would not hear anything?? And nowadays most Audi's are Doctors. Strange eh?
Unless you mean it in the eyes of insurance companies then I do agree :) I just want to yell at someone and say "Excuse me for wanting to HEAR you!!"
 
Hands & Voices in Colorado got a law passed so that insurance MUST cover hearing aids, but it might be just for under 18.
 
I to was suprised that my outlay was more for my HA than for both my CI's.

I do know quite a few co-workers who have HA's and really should wear them but for some reason or another choose not to. All I know is it sure is nice to listen to the telephone with the T-coil on my CI with the Mics turned down when they are having a party in the walkway talking about something. Hence, they really should wear their aids so they wouldn't disturb others.

Steve
 
It still sucks no matter how you slice it. FYI , I knew a CI whom had half of her CI equipment destroyed by a dog and its not replaceable with new equipment unless there was new surgery. whats the point of surgeries if equipment is damaged. a 2-5 yr old CI hardware is more expensive then current BTE technologies at lower price so insurance companies want to say its MORE durable ? yeah right my ass. BTE's is cheaper and easier to fix, maintain and replace and can save insurance thousands, but no the want to say its a cosmetic thing ????
 
It's just a ridiculous standard they hold up because they don't want to pony up for hearing aids, and most hearing people don't give a shit/think "well they can still hear it's just a little thing like my reading glasses and they cost thousands of dollars wow that's a lot I only pay $40 for MY reading glasses". However, denying a deaf person a CI is sure to make a public backlash, sort of like that audist article about a girl who got denied a second CI.

TLDR: CI and HA are expensive, HA are easier to label unnecessary without backlash.
 
radioman said:
It still sucks no matter how you slice it. FYI , I knew a CI whom had half of her CI equipment destroyed by a dog and its not replaceable with new equipment unless there was new surgery. whats the point of surgeries if equipment is damaged. a 2-5 yr old CI hardware is more expensive then current BTE technologies at lower price so insurance companies want to say its MORE durable ? yeah right my ass. BTE's is cheaper and easier to fix, maintain and replace and can save insurance thousands, but no the want to say its a cosmetic thing ????
Click to expand...


I agree with you.


With the baby bommer generation entering their golden years, more people are going to need HAs so will they get denied HAs by their insurance carriers?
 
It does boggle the mind. I have two sources of insurance available. One will pay up to 60,000 for CI, the other has no limit (glad that is the one I chose). But, neither one will pay even a penny for a hearing aid.
 
honestly, i've never understood why insurance companies will pay for a $45,000 ci and not hearing aids.

i've heard that one reason is because so many people who need hearing aids don't wear them. still, that's no excuse.
 
Hear Again said:
honestly, i've never understood why insurance companies will pay for a $45,000 ci and not hearing aids.

i've heard that one reason is because so many people who need hearing aids don't wear them. still, that's no excuse.
Click to expand...

because of incentive
 
Jiro said:
because of incentive
Click to expand...

in my opinion, that isn't good enough of a reason.

i'd like some of the people who work for insurance companies to live a day in our shoes and try to function without hearing aids. :mad2:
 
Hear Again said:
in my opinion, that isn't good enough of a reason.

i'd like some of the people who work for insurance companies to live a day in our shoes and try to function without hearing aids. :mad2:
Click to expand...

that's who they fire and replace those with people don't give a shit :mad2:
 
etalton said:
It does boggle the mind. I have two sources of insurance available. One will pay up to 60,000 for CI, the other has no limit (glad that is the one I chose). But, neither one will pay even a penny for a hearing aid.
Click to expand...

I find that scamming people or robbing their right to wear HAs.
 
Back
Top