Mothers of deaf children want insurance companies to pay for hearing aids

Smithtr

Smithtr

G.G.H.T
Premium Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
16,217
Reaction score
18
ATLANTA | A handful of mothers with deaf children urged legislators Tuesday to require health insurance companies to provide hearing aids.

The women estimated there are fewer than 400 children needing the devices which can run as much as $6,000 for a pair every five years. Medicaid, the state’s insurance for the poor, already provides them, but most private insurance companies don’t because, unlike devices such as pacemakers, they aren’t necessary for survival.

The mothers, who formed LetGeorgiaHear.org, argue that spending $40,000 on hearing aids during a child’s youth avoids tenfold costs for special education.

“It’s going to be hard. It’s not a very popular concept,” admits Kelly Jenkins, one of the group’s co-founders and the mother of 3-year-old Sloane who was fitted with hearing aids before she could walk.

Comer Yates, executive director of the Atlanta Speech School, said 90 percent of deaf children are born to hearing parents, so they are unlikely to learn sign language from their parents at an age when other children are developing their vocabulary.

“Early exposure to language determines a child’s pathway in life,” he said.

Rep. Ed Lindsey, R-Atlanta, is the sponsor of House Bill 74 that would mandate hearing-aid coverage for children.

“Some folks in my community came to me and showed me there was a need for it,” he said. “I’ve long been an advocate for the principle that my job is not to come down here and deliver edicts from the Gold Dome but to take the wisdom of my community to the table where decisions are made.”


Read more at Jacksonville.com: Mothers of deaf children want insurance companies to pay for hearing aids | jacksonville.com
Click to expand...

Mothers of deaf children want insurance companies to pay for hearing aids | jacksonville.com
 
it would be cheaper for these parents to learn ASL for their children.
 
shel90 said:
it would be cheaper for these parents to learn ASL for their children.
Click to expand...

Why do you assume they aren't learning ASL?

Hearing aids should be covered. Glasses are covered, so why not hearing aids?
 
CSign said:
Why do you assume they aren't learning ASL?

Hearing aids should be covered. Glasses are covered, so why not hearing aids?
Click to expand...

Glasses? I have never had an insurance policy that pays for glasses.

I would be thrilled if both were.
 
CSign said:
Why do you assume they aren't learning ASL?

Hearing aids should be covered. Glasses are covered, so why not hearing aids?
Click to expand...

B/c a lot of the people quoted in the article are AG Bell affliated such as Atlanta Speech School......You always see AG Bell advocates at political things like this, since their kids tend to be totally dependent (and they can't function) without hearing technology. But yes shel, you're right. I have a feeling if it weren't for the profit margin, oral only would be very obscure.
 
What is wrong with the parents wanting HA for their children? They're not your children - it's their choice. Since when is ok for Deaf monitors to go around and decide what's right for other families? All families that want HA should receive full coverage. HA are no different than glasses and every child regardless of hearing loss should be able to benefit from them.

Laura
 
My understanding is that, functionally, HA's are different than glasses in that, on average, glasses do correct vision, while HA's do not correct hearing.
Also, with eye glasses there is not all the associated implications as there are with HA's, such as many like Shel have already described in their own experiences on the forum. So I get what Shel and DD mean.

I'm with Bott in that I do wish both were covered.
 
Many companies offer a vision plan which covers eye exams & glasses.
 
dogmom said:
My understanding is that, functionally, HA's are different than glasses in that, on average, glasses do correct vision, while HA's do not correct hearing.
Also, with eye glasses there is not all the associated implications as there are with HA's, such as many like Shel have already described in their own experiences on the forum. So I get what Shel and DD mean.

I'm with Bott in that I do wish both were covered.
Click to expand...

I don't follow this. Both glasses and hearing aids work to bring that particular sense closer to optimal but neither change the underlying function. The success of their usage is dependent on the reason for the loss as well as the degree.
 
The reason hearing aids are not covered by most insurance policies and cochlear implants are is because of the legal language they use. A CI is durable medical equipment whereas a hearing aid is not. With enough conversation and support in critical areas, that may change, especially because of the price of hearing aids these days.....
 
My health plan, which I've had for like 20 years, has never covered glasses or vision exams. It will cover an opthamalogist for serious problems (e.g. I had an eye infection a few years ago and that was covered). But I think more companies DON'T cover glasses than do.
 
Aids are covered under some plans. I have to put in a claim for my new one. Hopefully, I'll finish the claim tomorrow and send it in, 80% in network 60% outside network.
 
Tousi said:
The reason hearing aids are not covered by most insurance policies and cochlear implants are is because of the legal language they use. A CI is durable medical equipment whereas a hearing aid is not. With enough conversation and support in critical areas, that may change, especially because of the price of hearing aids these days.....
Click to expand...

On the other hand, it can be really hard to get insurance to approve CIs even when they are covered. I think too that insurance companies initially covered them b/c while they're expensive, not a lot of dhh people were opting for them. So it wasn't a loss leader. Whereas if they covered hearing aids, they would have to cover EVERYONE! I also think too that if they covered hearing aids, they'd be afraid of THOSE people who think that the hearing aid that came out a second ago, is MUCH MUCH better then the hearing aid that came out an hour ago. Plus more people can benefit from hearing aids, then can CIs.
 
Lau2046 said:
What is wrong with the parents wanting HA for their children? They're not your children - it's their choice. Since when is ok for Deaf monitors to go around and decide what's right for other families? All families that want HA should receive full coverage. HA are no different than glasses and every child regardless of hearing loss should be able to benefit from them.

Laura
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying it's wrong. We're just pointing out something that a lot of people who chose oral only don't seem to realize.......that making a dhh kid dependent on hearing technology, whether it be hearing aids or CI increases their healthcare spending. Even hearing and otherwise healthy people are struggling with high healthcare costs. (due to premeniums etc ) If hearing/otherwise healthy people have trouble affording good quality healthcare, how is a dhh person supposed to?
 
On the other hand, maybe if kids aids are covered, this might help some families so they might be able to afford to move closer to a Deaf School.....
 
Back
Top