Let Them Hear Foundation

[jillio]

Directly from the web site.

WHAT HEARING DEVICES CAN LTHF PROVIDE?

LTHF provides consultation for many hearing devices and accessories, including cochlear implants, hearing aids and assistive listening devices.

WHAT SERVICES DOES LTHF OFFER?

LTHF offers clinical services for:

Children with hearing and/ or language deficits
Prospective and current cochlear implant patients
Candidates for auditory and speech/language services
Any person who has been turned down by his insurance company for coverage of hearing-related service or device.

I'd be interested to know how much of their time is spent advocating for hearing aid coverage vs. the amount of time spent in advocating for CI., or if any time at all is spent advocating for insurance coverage on HA. They are also directly involved with ORAL ONLY educational practices, and offer services directly related to ORAL ONLY linguistic environments. Through their practices, they reinforce the ORAL ONLY philospophy that has been shown to further limit deaf children. "Hearing related service or devise" is extremely ambiguous language.

 

[jillio]

Wow! Amazing how an innocent question can start a waging war! Perhap, i'll refrain from asking a simple question from now on.

Never refrain from asking questions just because a select number of people don't like the answer. Your question has served to uncover some important truths.

 

[jillio]

Well, there's good information between all the petty disagreeing......
... at least you now know that Let Them Hear Foundation handle applications for HA's as well...

btw..
CI companies are often being accused for their monopoly position since CI is being manufactured by only a few companies. However, appearently the same is true for HA's:


So.... I guess there's reason to keep people at their HA as long as possible as well.....

This is in regard to monopoly within the business community.

And, HA manufacturers do not promote an ORAL ONLY philiosophy, nor do they promote practices that influence the development of deaf children. Nor do HAs require a $50,000 additional medical fee for surgery. If an HA breaks, a physician is not making money from a reimplantation.

 

[jillio]

For those of us who actually LIKE to hear this foundation is a great option. I gave my sister info. so she could try contacting them regarding BAHA. It seems that they don't like to approve BAHA's either. (she likes to hear to, she thinks it would be cool to actually understand more of what goes on around her for the first time in years)





Well everyone has to make a living so if they make some money good for them. As far as I'm concerned I really don't give a rip if they make money because someone is influenced to purchase something because of what they did. I DON'T care if LHF earns a profit so long as they are providing a service free or low cost to people appealing their rejections from insurance companies. If people want to hear I'm grateful that LTH helps them accomplish that goal. If they were forcing these people to get Ci's then I'd have a problem with it.

Perhaps you don't, but I do have a problem with the long term consequences for many of their practices aside from their advocacy functions.

 

[jillio]

Yes they have impressive resumes. I'm glad they're working to give us hoh/deaf people the chance to hear when insurance becomes an issue.

Those are not resumes. They are biographies. And if you don't have a problem that the greatest amount of experience and qualification relates directly to the business world and financial area, rather than experience in deafness, that's fine. But it does serve to illustrate their goals and their interests.

 

[jillio]

so you think that LTHF is recieveing payments from the insurance companies they're appealing against. Wierd. why would the insurance company pay them? Perhaps they'd have to pay the attourney fees from the appeal but that's normal in our system. But the way you stated that I get the impression that they're getting kickbacks from the insurance companies for making the insurance company fork out $$ they didn't want to.

sigh. I'm happy that the LTH foundation is working with the Drs. CI companies and prospective patients to get the implants paid for and give the patients the oppertunity to hear.

Here is how it works:

1) Insurance company refuses to pay for CI.
2) LTH goes to court, court orders the insurance company to pay for all costs associated with CI.
3) That insurance payment is made to the LTH doctors and the audiologists providing the medical services required to implant and maintain the CI.
4)LTH does not just provide advocacy services. They also run a clinic that does the surgery.
5) The clinic is paid as a result of the advocacy for a patient that they would not have done surgery on otherwise. I.E. Income generated.
6) Who exactly do you think these insurance companies are being ordered to pay? It certainly isn't lawyers. The insurance covers medical procedures, notlegal procedures.
7) It is not the CI manufacuter that is paid by the insurance company. The clinic purchases the devise from the manufacturer, and then passes that cost, along with costs for medical services on to the patient. The insurance pays for what the patient has been charged by the clinic and the physician. So, in advocating fopr CI coverage, the advocacy, in fact, is designed to make sure that doctors are paid for the $50,000 they have charged the patient.

 

[jillio]

SO all deaf/hoh people should think as you do and object to the implants?

Don't think so. we are all individuals and all have different goals in life. Mine was to hear better. Many of the recipeient of CI's that LTH has helped (not myself) are older people who become hoh/deaf and want to hear again, they should not have to give up the gift of being able to hear again because you or others object to what this foundation does.

I do not object to the implants. I object to an organization being portrayed as altruistic and magnanimous when that is not the case. Their advocacy results in doctors and hospitals being paid. That is the sole purpose of the advocacy. To insure that the payment is received by the physician, not to insure that all candidates receive implants, nor that all HA users receive appropriate assistance.

If one chooses an implant, fine. If an organization supports implants, fine. But lets be realistic about motive. The organization supports them not for altuistic reasons, or even for concern for the deaf individuals. They support them because they make money off of them.

 

[jillio]

CI's rock and HA's suck.... for me at least and it shouldn't have been that way. I was 'ambigious' now I hear.

Thankfully the gubermint hasn't gotten it's fingers to deeply into the regulation of the insurance yet. BTW very few insurance companies will approve abigious canidates. Theyd have to have a good reason to give that approval. And very few of us can actually afford to pay 50000+ to have a CI. (it gets hard just o make payments for a year on 3200 worth of worthless HA's)

And that is where precedence comes in. Vallee herself has admitted that she was an ambiguous candidate for her bilateral. The insurance company denied her second implant as a result. Legal action taken by LTH reversed the insurance company's decision. That is where precedence comes in. And simple logic tells you that physicians are paid more for two implants than for one.

If LTH were involved in just advocacy services, that would be a different story. But the fact of the matter is, the advocacy services do not stand on their own. The advocacy is in place as a way to create greater income for the organizations clinics and physicians.

 

[Buffalo]

But can't you see, vallee, that this places some people in the position of making a decision for CI that they would not otherwise make because it is the only way that they can receive assistance? I personally see that as very manipulative.

Agree!!!!! I don't like it a bit.

 

[jillio]

Agree!!!!! I don't like it a bit.

Thank you for taking time to look at the big picture, rather than indiviual circumstance, Buffalo. That seems to be difficult for many.

 

[jillio]

I find this a bit odd, as well.......contact info does not include a TTY number, not do they have an email contact, other than for comments and auggestions on their website. How are these deaf clients supposed to contact them? Given the population they serve, I find that oversight a bit inconsiderate to say the least.

 

[vallee]

Which is a result of precedence. Lessening of strict guidelines regarding implantation is a dangerous thing.

Even if I could get HAs I would not benefit from it. I did not hear about LTHF until I was not approved and Vanderbilt had filed 3 appeals for me. I found them from another CI patient.

How is my doctor getting kickbacks?

Jillio, It does not matter what I say or do, you don't agree. So don't agree that is fine. I'm not going to change my mind either.

the reason I was denied was BCBS did not cover bilateral implants. I had both done at once. The guidelines is 70 and up db loss. I am 89db loss, bcbs had a 90db and up loss. So I did meet the guidelines set for CIs just my insurance company did not want both done.

 

[vallee]

Here is how it works:

1) Insurance company refuses to pay for CI.
2) LTH goes to court, court orders the insurance company to pay for all costs associated with CI.We did not go to court. Not everything is done in court. that is false.
3) That insurance payment is made to the LTH doctors and the audiologists providing the medical services required to implant and maintain the CI.My doctor is not LTHF doctor, I'm across the country.
4)LTH does not just provide advocacy services. They also run a clinic that does the surgery. My surgery was done in Tennesee not at there clinic
5) The clinic is paid as a result of the advocacy for a patient that they would not have done surgery on otherwise. I.E. Income generated.Again not all patients use their clinics.
6) Who exactly do you think these insurance companies are being ordered to pay? It certainly isn't lawyers. The insurance covers medical procedures, notlegal procedures.No court case for me but a change in policy, so no lawyer fees
7) It is not the CI manufacuter that is paid by the insurance company. The clinic purchases the devise from the manufacturer, and then passes that cost, along with costs for medical services on to the patient. The insurance pays for what the patient has been charged by the clinic and the physician. So, in advocating fopr CI coverage, the advocacy, in fact, is designed to make sure that doctors are paid for the $50,000 they have charged the patient.Again not true

that maybe what you think but it is not completely true, I lived through all the denials and appeals. Many of CI patients have lived through it too. I know what is true and what is false. Also don't twist my words.

 

[vallee]

I find this a bit odd, as well.......contact info does not include a TTY number, not do they have an email contact, other than for comments and auggestions on their website. How are these deaf clients supposed to contact them? Given the population they serve, I find that oversight a bit inconsiderate to say the least.

You have to fill out a form first. They ask when they e-mail you back what way you communicate. I used att relay and e-mail. So don't read into it.

 

[vallee]

And that is where precedence comes in. Vallee herself has admitted that she was an ambiguous candidate for her bilateral. The insurance company denied her second implant as a result. Legal action taken by LTH reversed the insurance company's decision. That is where precedence comes in. And simple logic tells you that physicians are paid more for two implants than for one.

If LTH were involved in just advocacy services, that would be a different story. But the fact of the matter is, the advocacy services do not stand on their own. The advocacy is in place as a way to create greater income for the organizations clinics and physicians.

the reason is there policy is they do not cover bilateral. I made a choice to have bilateral and not do it one at a time. It was my choice! My reasoning was why have two surgeries when I can have one.

 

[jillio]

Even if I could get HAs I would not benefit from it. I did not hear about LTHF until I was not approved and Vanderbilt had filed 3 appeals for me. I found them from another CI patient.

How is my doctor getting kickbacks?

Jillio, It does not matter what I say or do, you don't agree. So don't agree that is fine. I'm not going to change my mind either.

the reason I was denied was BCBS did not cover bilateral implants. I had both done at once. The guidelines is 70 and up db loss. I am 89db loss, bcbs had a 90db and up loss. So I did meet the guidelines set for CIs just my insurance company did not want both done.

And that sets precedence for the decision on other bilateral implants.

The fact of the matter is vallee, that your OP presented information regarding LTH. However, that information was not complete. Therefore, I also presented information in addition to what you presented, originally in response to another poster's question. I have not given opinion, but simply stated that information which is available regarding this organization and the way certain procedureswork. More than once, I have stated that it is wonderful that this organization was able to help you (my opinion), as well as conceding to th efact that they indeed do assist others.

I beleive that in order to make informed assessments, or to make informed decisions, all people must have made available to them all information. And that is what I have done. Provided additional information. If that somehow contradicts your opinion of LTH, then I'm sorry that there is information available that does that. However, if one is secure in their opinion, and can support it rationally and unemotionally, then they are not in the least threatened by additional information. Perhaps you don't wish to look at everything available, but that in no way means that others do no have the right to the information, in order that they have available to them everything that will enable them to intelligently sort through the information and make a choice or form an opinion. To deny them the opportunity is to engage in censorship. When you post an article presenting one side of an issue, or contains incomplete information on a public forum, you open yourself up for additional information to be provided. If it contradicts your opinion, it is the inforamtion available that has done that, not my opinion.

I am not disagreeing or agreeing with you, vallee. Your opinion is your opinion. Your decisions are your decisions. It is not a matter of agreement or disagreement. It is a matter of providing all information to others in order that they might form their own opinions and make their own decisions. I haven't told anyone what opinion they are to have about LTH. Ihave simply reported information that is necessary to form an intelligent and analytical opinion. Whatever someone decides about LTH is their business. At least the information is there. If they choose to ignore it, fine. If they choose to include it in their evaluation, then so much the better, because that will result in one more instance of freedom of choice.

You are free to give credence to whatever information supports your viewpoint. Others are entitled to do the same. However, no one is entitled to censor opposing information simply because it conflicts with their view.

 

[vallee]

And that sets precedence for the decision on other bilateral implants.

The fact of the matter is vallee, that your OP presented information regarding LTH. However, that information was not complete. Therefore, I also presented information in addition to what you presented, originally in response to another poster's question. I have not given opinion, but simply stated that information which is available regarding this organization and the way certain procedureswork. More than once, I have stated that it is wonderful that this organization was able to help you (my opinion), as well as conceding to th efact that they indeed do assist others.

I beleive that in order to make informed assessments, or to make informed decisions, all people must have made available to them all information. And that is what I have done. Provided additional information. If that somehow contradicts your opinion of LTH, then I'm sorry that there is information available that does that. However, if one is secure in their opinion, and can support it rationally and unemotionally, then they are not in the least threatened by additional information. Perhaps you don't wish to look at everything available, but that in no way means that others do no have the right to the information, in order that they have available to them everything that will enable them to intelligently sort through the information and make a choice or form an opinion. To deny them the opportunity is to engage in censorship. When you post an article presenting one side of an issue, or contains incomplete information on a public forum, you open yourself up for additional information to be provided. If it contradicts your opinion, it is the inforamtion available that has done that, not my opinion.

I am not disagreeing or agreeing with you, vallee. Your opinion is your opinion. Your decisions are your decisions. It is not a matter of agreement or disagreement. It is a matter of providing all information to others in order that they might form their own opinions and make their own decisions. I haven't told anyone what opinion they are to have about LTH. Ihave simply reported information that is necessary to form an intelligent and analytical opinion. Whatever someone decides about LTH is their business. At least the information is there. If they choose to ignore it, fine. If they choose to include it in their evaluation, then so much the better, because that will result in one more instance of freedom of choice.

You are free to give credence to whatever information supports your viewpoint. Others are entitled to do the same. However, no one is entitled to censor opposing information simply because it conflicts with their view.

The only thing I am asking is how do I know that your posting are completely true? Just because you posted it, does not mean it is completely correct?

 

[jillio]

You have to fill out a form first. They ask when they e-mail you back what way you communicate. I used att relay and e-mail. So don't read into it.

Ah, yes. I saw that. An appointment form. What if one doesn't want to make an appointment, but simply to gather information? If one is hearing, one can call any of the phone numbers listed and ask a question directly. If they had a TTD line, deaf indiviuals could do the same. However, they are not given that accommodation, despite the minimal cost of installing a TDD line. Third party relay is an alternative, but there are often problems with relay calls, and it forces one to go through a 3rd party rather than have direct communication. Email is not made available until one has filled out an appointment form. I'm not reading anything into anything. Those are the facts.

All of the agencies that I deal with that are service agencies for the deaf all have TDD lines in order that the client can contact them without having to use 3rd parties. Nor do they refuse to provide an email address until paperwork has been provided identifying the individual as a potential patient or client.

 

[jillio]

The only thing I am asking is how do I know that your posting are completely true? Just because you posted it, does not mean it is completely correct?

Well, if you question what I have posted, then you question the credibility of LTH themselves, as the information has come directly from their website.

 

[jillio]

Oh, good! I see that LTHFAdvocate has logged on. Perhaps now we will get a definitive answer on what the ratio of cases litigated to insure insurance coverage for HA is compared to the number of cases litigated to insure insurance coverage for CI specifically as applied to those litigations initiated by The Let Them Hear Foundation.