Response to deafdyke: CIs vs. HAs/CI candidacy

I don't like dealing with statistics (since I believe any study can be biased to reflect the conclusions a researcher wants it to), but I've actually researched this and found that CIs cost *less* money over the long run compared to HAs, interpreters and captionists. Since many CI users (particularly children who are implanted at a very early age) are able to function without the need for terps or captionists, this means less money is spent on accommodating a child who uses a CI compared to a D/deaf or hard of hearing child who uses a terp or captionist.

According to one website I looked at it costs an extra US$1million dollars over a childs' lifetime to educate a deaf child in the traditional special education field with deaf schools with interpreters etc. It sort of makes you realise why there is a keenness to implant children at an early age by policy makers. They reckon that the CI is the second most cost effective medical procedure in the the medical system for that reason. :eek3: And that is taking into account how expensive it is!

Also contrary to some of the views put forward here audiologists, hospitals and doctors often lose out financially by undertaking cochlear implants.

Another point that was made that is relevent to this discussion is that a large number of profoundly deaf people who easily qualify for CIs cannot get them in the US due to insufficient insurance coverage and Medicaid coverage. I think this is far more outrageous than the issue of relaxed candidacy requirements.

Here is the site if anyone is interested What Does Health Insurance Pay for Cochlear Implants? It seems to be quite an objective site as it includes criticism of Cochlear America's alleged past corporate practices!
 
Also contrary to some of the views put forward here audiologists, hospitals and doctors often lose out financially by undertaking cochlear implants.

This is true. I was surprised to learn that my CI center (the largest in my state and region) only performs 7 CI surgeries per year. I can't quote any specific numbers, but my audi said CI centers/hospitals lose a substantial amount of money for each CI surgery that is performed. She also said this is even more of a problem for CI candidates on Medicaid and Medicare since the government only pays the CI center/hospital only 30%-50% of the total cost of a CI.

quote
 
Last edited:
They also may be doing different tests. When the HA audi I work with does speech recognition testing, I score 80%; but she's doing a closed set, and after 15+ years, I know those words cold (hotdog, cowboy, airplane, baseball, popcorn, ice cream, etc). Do it with an open set of words, like the CI audi, and put in even 5-10 dB of noise (over the signal threshold), and my score drops to 30%.

So saying that a given person has N% speech discrimination is something of an ambiguous statement.


Just to clarify something, you are confusing Word Recognition with Speech Reception Thresholds (SRT's). Hotdog, cowboy, airplane are spondees used to assess SRT's, therefore I don't care how many you get right or wrong, I only want to know at what intensity you are most consistent. It is the lowest level a person can hear a word and repeat it back. It is used as sort of a checks and balance to compare it to the pure tone thresholds. Word recognition is assessed using an open set of words (An, Yard, ball, carve), that is the test we obtain your Word recognition ability (80%). I never do the same word list on someone over and over again, especially someone who's been thru this for 15+ years. Heck, I have all the word list memorized, if I can, so can you. :lol:

Hearing in Noise is not a test used to determine cochlear implant candidacy. If you have hearing loss, I expect you to have difficulty hearing in noise, as does everyone with any degree of hearing loss. Some just might have more difficulty than others.
 
DD,
As far as Transpostion HAs those might work for someone who has a high frequency loss and good hearing in the low frequency. It is not an option for everyone.


Something to add. Transpositional hearing aids rarely, if ever work, on someone older than a 2-3yr old child. Once you get to the stage in someones life that he/she has preferences, they won't like it. Same as trying CROS/BiCros aids. They are specialty hearing aids, and often adults won't like them, nor believe they do what they do. But fit a kid with Cros/BiCros aids or a transpositional hearing aid, and they will likely wear it their entire life.

Transpositional aids are fit on someone where the portion of the cochlea that is responsible for the high frequencies is dead (no measurable hearing at all), not just a high frequency hearing loss, it has to be dead there. That is because if I try amplifying a cochlear dead region, it will be nothing but distortion. So that aid will then take the signal that it recieves and smooshes it over into the lower and mid frequency region. It sounds horrible if you ever listen to one.
 
:gpost:
They also may be doing different tests. When the HA audi I work with does speech recognition testing, I score 80%; but she's doing a closed set, and after 15+ years, I know those words cold (hotdog, cowboy, airplane, baseball, popcorn, ice cream, etc). Do it with an open set of words, like the CI audi, and put in even 5-10 dB of noise (over the signal threshold), and my score drops to 30%.

So saying that a given person has N% speech discrimination is something of an ambiguous statement.

Testing conditions and actual environment are two different situations. Those percentages do not account for too many variables that affect discrimination. How many people do you know that live in a sound proof booth?
 
Something to add. Transpositional hearing aids rarely, if ever work, on someone older than a 2-3yr old child. Once you get to the stage in someones life that he/she has preferences, they won't like it. Same as trying CROS/BiCros aids. They are specialty hearing aids, and often adults won't like them, nor believe they do what they do. But fit a kid with Cros/BiCros aids or a transpositional hearing aid, and they will likely wear it their entire life.

Transpositional aids are fit on someone where the portion of the cochlea that is responsible for the high frequencies is dead (no measurable hearing at all), not just a high frequency hearing loss, it has to be dead there. That is because if I try amplifying a cochlear dead region, it will be nothing but distortion. So that aid will then take the signal that it recieves and smooshes it over into the lower and mid frequency region. It sounds horrible if you ever listen to one.

My son was fitted with transpositional HA when he was 18 months old. He hated them. Would take them off and throw them across the room. It was so bad that I had to tie fishing line to the aid, and then pin the fishing line to his shirt with a safety pin so when he jerked them off I could find them without crawling around on the floor. He is now 20 and goes unaided completely.
 
Just to clarify something, you are confusing Word Recognition with Speech Reception Thresholds (SRT's). Hotdog, cowboy, airplane are spondees used to assess SRT's, therefore I don't care how many you get right or wrong, I only want to know at what intensity you are most consistent. It is the lowest level a person can hear a word and repeat it back.

I'm not quite sure I understand. It matters to some level that I can distinguish the one from the other, right? Or is it just that I hear *a* word, and so that is some threshold, and you're using it to compensate for the fact that digital aids focus on speech noise and diminish background noise (like pure tones) as much as they can?

Just goes to show - when someone tells you a number, you have to be very careful before deciding what that number actually means, as they may have it wrong themselves. :ty:
 
Just goes to show - when someone tells you a number, you have to be very careful before deciding what that number actually means, as they may have it wrong themselves. :ty:

Another problem with numbers and percentages arises when people inaccurately define their hearing loss in terms of a percentage. ("I have 80% hearing loss.") Some people think that if they have a 50 dB loss at 250 Hz or a 50 dB loss across all frequencies, this translates into 50% hearing loss.

Here's an interesting article which discusses hearing loss and why it is considered in terms of decibels instead of a percentage:

Hearing Loss—Decibels or Percent?

Hearing Loss—Decibels or Percent?
© December 2000 by Neil Bauman, Ph.D. (Revised February 2003)

Question: From time to time, I see people writing, "I have 78% hearing loss in my right ear and 95% in the left." What does this percent mean? I thought sound was measured in decibels (dB), not percent? If this is the case what percent is 115 dB?—R. D.

Answer: Excellent questions. You have good reason to be confused because you cannot equate decibels to percentages no matter what anyone tells you.

Decibels vs. Percent
Sound intensities are indeed measured in decibels (dB). There are two reasons why you can never equate decibels to percentages. First, the decibel scale is open-ended like that of the Richter scale used for measuring earthquake intensities. To calculate a percent you need to know the maximum value possible. In both of these scales there is no limiting maximum value. Therefore, you cannot calculate a percentage. Any attempt to do so is just a bunch of meaningless gibberish!

Second, the decibel scale is logarithmic, while the percent scale is linear. Numbers that appear to be similar have vastly differing meanings. They are as different as trying to compare apples to elephants!

When people (ignorantly) talk about having a 50 percent hearing loss they likely mean that they have a 50 dB loss. Where did the idea come from that we can measure hearing loss in percentages? Here is how Brad Ingrao, an outstanding audiologist, explained it.

To measure sound intensity (the way audiologists measure it) you need to do a mathematical calculation that is so strange that 20 + 20 = 26 dB (SPL).

"To make a scale that makes sense to most people (including us knucklehead audiologists), a different equation is used to convert sound intensity using the Sound Pressure Level (SPL) scale to the Hearing Level (HL) scale that goes from 0 dB HL (normal threshold) to 120 dB HL (pain).

If we forget about hearing losses greater than 100 dB (like most people tend to do), we get 0 dB to 100 dB as the usable (dynamic) range of hearing for the average 'normal' ear.

Since doctors and audiologists tend to under-estimate their patient's ability to understand such things (or they don't understand it themselves), the erroneous concept of dB = % evolved."

There you have it folks. It seems health care professionals think we are too stupid to understand much, so they let us believe error rather than teach us the truth.

We can put a stop to this nonsense right now. Let's understand how this decibel scale works and why using a percentage value to describe our hearing losses is so very wrong.

First we need to understand that a decibel is not a given intensity (loudness) of sound, but rather, it is a ratio of how many times louder (or softer) a sound is than a given reference sound level.

This means that 0 dB is not the absence of sound, but is an arbitrary zero. We define it as the faintest sound that a young sensitive human ear can hear. Furthermore, because the decibel scale is logarithmic, every 10 dB increase in sound intensity is actually a ten-fold increase. Therefore, a sound intensity of 20 dB is not twice as loud as a sound intensity of 10 dB, but is 10 times as loud, and a sound intensity of 30 dB is 100 times as loud as a sound intensity of 10 dB. Similarly, a sound intensity of 50 dB would be 100,000 times as loud (10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10). This is how the decibel scale works. It is totally unlike the linear percent scale.

Now lets see the fallacy of trying to compare this "funny" decibel scale to the percent scale. To illustrate this, let's assume (remember this assumption we're making here is totally wrong) that 0 dB is equal to 0 percent hearing loss and that 100 dB equals a 100 percent loss. This would then mean that 50 percent would equal a 50 dB hearing loss, right? Wrong! Not by a long shot! A 50 percent hearing loss would equal, believe it or not, only a 3 dB loss! Looking at it the other way, a 50 decibel loss is not just half as loud, like it would be in a percentage scale, but would only be one thousandth of one percent as loud!

Here is another example. I have a 70 dB loss. This is not equal to a 70 percent loss by any means. In actual fact it means that the softest sound I can hear needs to be 10,000,000 times louder than the softest sound a person with normal hearing can hear. One out of ten million is definitely not a 70 per cent loss but would be a loss of 99.9999999%! Quite a difference, isn't it? Now you can see why we must never use percentages when talking about our hearing losses. They just do not equate. They are absolutely meaningless!

Percent Used to Describe Discrimination
Although we cannot use percentages to describe our hearing losses, we correctly use percentages to describe our ability to discriminate sounds. To determine our ability to discriminate between words, our audiologist sets the volume at our most comfortable listening level. She then has us listen to a list of words and we repeat back what we think we heard. The number we get right, converted to a percentage, becomes our discrimination score. Therefore, if I understood 80 out of 100 words in my right ear, my discrimination is 80% for that ear. I may have an entirely different result for my other ear. Consequently, we can correctly describe our ability to understand what we hear as a percentage. A person could correctly say that his discrimination is 78% in his right ear and 95% in his left ear. But this has nothing to do with the severity of our hearing losses as such.

Percentage and Hearing Disability
If your hearing loss resulted from an accident on the job, there is a formula that is used to calculate the percent disability pension for which you may be eligible. Don't get mixed up. This is not your hearing loss expressed as a percentage. Rather, this formula calculates how much your degree of hearing loss supposedly impacts your ability to remain employed at full wages.

For example, plunking your hearing loss levels into the formula may yield a result of 75%. This means that with your particular hearing loss, you may be entitled to a 75% disability pension. Again, this is not your average hearing loss expressed as a percentage. If you are interested in how they calculate a percentage disability for any given hearing loss, see my article you can read it at "How Much Are You Worth as a Hard of Hearing Person?".

Classifying Our Hearing Losses
Hearing health care professionals classify hearing into several categories such as normal, slight, mild, moderate, moderately severe, severe, profound and deaf. Not all of them use all of these categories, nor do they all use the same hearing loss ranges in each one. In the past, most used this simple scale.

Simple Hearing Classification Hearing Threshold

Normal hearing down to 20 dB
Mild hearing loss 21 to 40 dB
Moderate hearing loss 41 to 60 dB
Severe hearing loss 61 to 90 dB
Profound hearing loss below 90 dB






Today, research has shown that even hearing losses of only a few decibels can cause significant hearing problems. As a result, many hearing health care professionals have fine-tuned this scale to better reflect this reality. (Note that these ranges are arbitrary and may vary slightly among authorities.)

Today's Hearing Classification Hearing Threshold

Normal hearing -10 to 15 dB
Slight hearing loss 16 to 25 dB
Mild hearing loss 26 to 40 dB
Moderate hearing loss 41 to 55 dB
Moderately severe loss 56 to 70 dB
Severe hearing loss 71 to 90 dB
Profound hearing loss 91 to 120 dB
Deaf below 120 dB











Describing Our Hearing Losses
Unless you have a "flat" curve on your audiogram, how can you accurately describe your hearing loss? Your hearing loss could be different at every frequency so one word could be meaningless.

The best way is to be specific. If I have the typical "ski slope" hearing loss, I could describe it as, "I have a 30 dB loss at 500 Hz, dropping to 100 dB at 4,000 Hz." A more general way, but still accurate, would be to describe it as, "I have a mild loss in the low frequencies, dropping to profound in the higher frequencies.

The next best way to describe our hearing losses is to average the 4 frequencies that carry most of the speech information to arrive at a single figure. Use the following four frequencies—500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, 2,000 Hz and 3,000 Hz—and average the hearing loss at these frequencies to come up with one figure. However this method falls down if we only have a bit of hearing left in the very low frequencies. Incidentally, it is not right to take the average of our best and worst figures. That could give a very wrong impression of our hearing losses.

If you want a very simple way to describe your hearing loss, the most accurate (and simple) is to say you have either a mild, moderate, severe, or profound hearing loss. Your audiologist can tell you which category your hearing is generally in. (Remember, you could be mild in the low frequencies and profound in the highs—but to oversimplify, you can reasonably accurately reflect your practical hearing loss by using one of these categories.) It is much more meaningful, and far more accurate than trying to use a meaningless percentage. Let's get back to using these standard audiological terms and stamp out this absurd percent business.
 
I'm not quite sure I understand. It matters to some level that I can distinguish the one from the other, right? Or is it just that I hear *a* word, and so that is some threshold, and you're using it to compensate for the fact that digital aids focus on speech noise and diminish background noise (like pure tones) as much as they can?

Just goes to show - when someone tells you a number, you have to be very careful before deciding what that number actually means, as they may have it wrong themselves. :ty:


Your not being asked to distinguish one word from another (that would be discrimination, when there are mulitple choices given to you, you pick the right one). SRT's are simply a check point (we want to see a good agreement between the SRT and where you responded to the tones). The level that the words given to you to assess word recognition are based off the SRT. Typically it's 30-40dBHL above your SRT. So if your SRT is 40dB, then the words to assess your recognition ability would be given to you at 70-80dBHL. However, with people who have hearing loss, the most appropriate way to determine what level to give the Word Recognition test words is to measure the Most Comfortable Loudness Level (MCL). As many with hearing loss have whats called recruitment (an abnormal growth in loudness). SRT's are not used in anyway shape or form to program a hearing aid.
 
Today, research has shown that even hearing losses of only a few decibels can cause significant hearing problems. As a result, many hearing health care professionals have fine-tuned this scale to better reflect this reality. (Note that these ranges are arbitrary and may vary slightly among authorities.)

Today's Hearing Classification Hearing Threshold

Normal hearing -10 to 15 dB
Slight hearing loss 16 to 25 dB
Mild hearing loss 26 to 40 dB
Moderate hearing loss 41 to 55 dB
Moderately severe loss 56 to 70 dB
Severe hearing loss 71 to 90 dB
Profound hearing loss 91 to 120 dB
Deaf below 120 dB


No one in their right mind would use that hearing loss classification table. If I fit someone with thresholds at 16dB I'd be arrested and have my license revoked. I applaud some of Dr. Baumans work, but he is not an ENT, Otologist, Audiologist, his doctorate's are in astronomy and theology.

Normal hearing is 20dB and better.
 
No one in their right mind would use that hearing loss classification table. If I fit someone with thresholds at 16dB I'd be arrested and have my license revoked. I applaud some of Dr. Baumans work, but he is not an ENT, Otologist, Audiologist, his doctorate's are in astronomy and theology.

Normal hearing is 20dB and better.

hmm... my loss has been 92 dbl in both ears !!! and now I am curious to see if I am deaf or still hoh. I'm thinking of considering myself an 'oral' deaf or something smilar.. I wear HAs and function in hearing world and deaf at the same time .. I am lost in hearing world without hearing aids .
:dunno2:
 
"I applaud some of Dr. Baumans work, but he is not an ENT, Otologist, Audiologist, his doctorate's are in astronomy and theology."

That may be true, but Dr. Bauman *does* have a congenital severe hearing loss, so he has first hand knowledge of what he is writing about.

By the way, your statement above came across as being rather arrogant to me. Not all ENTs, otologists and audis know more about hearing loss than a person who is hard of hearing or D/deaf.

For instance, I know of one audi who told her client that FM signals could be picked up via a hearing aid's T-coil without an FM system.

Back in 2001, my former ENT referred me to a middle ear implant specialist after looking at my audiogram. I had severe-profound hearing loss in my right ear, profound hearing loss in my left ear and 30% speech discrimination aided. The MEI specialist wondered why I was asking about a middle ear implant when I didn't have enough hearing (or the minimal level of speech discrimination required) to qualify.

A final example: I had a HA audi who ignored the fact that using any degree of compression would negatively affect my ability to hear and localize environmental sounds. He constantly told me about his other patients who loved using compression failing to consider how it interferes with my ability to travel safely as a totally blind person.

All of these examples show that ENTs, otologists and audis aren't perfect (not that you claimed they were) and that they don't always know more about hearing loss than their patients do..

Here is Dr. Bauman's biography:

Neil Bauman, the Director of the Center for Hearing Loss Help

Neil Bauman, Ph.D. (Dr. Neil) is a hearing loss coping skills specialist, researcher, author and speaker on issues pertaining to hearing loss. No stranger to hearing loss himself, he has lived with a life-long severe hereditary hearing loss. He became an excellent speechreader at an early age and practices numerous ways to successfully cope with being hard-of-hearing in a hearing world.

Dr. Neil did not let his hearing loss stop him from achieving what he wanted to do. He earned several degrees in fields ranging from forestry to ancient astronomy (Ph.D.) and theology (Th.D.). Later, he trained as a hearing loss coping skills specialist.

For a good number of years, Dr. Neil has devoted his life to researching and writing about hearing loss issues, and helping hard of hearing people understand and cope with their hearing losses.

He provides education, support and counsel to hard of hearing people through his books, articles, presentations and personal contact. People the world over seek his advice and wisdom on matters relating to hearing loss and how to cope successfully with this disability. Dr. Neil spends considerable time each day providing extensive e-mail support to hard of hearing people.

Dr. Neil is a prolific writer on subjects related to hearing loss and other ear conditions. He is the author of ten books (for books by Dr. Neil, click here) and numerous articles. For feature articles by Dr. Neil, click here, and for shorter articles, click here.

In the coming years watch for several new books Dr. Neil is currently researching and writing, including "Broken Ears—Wounded Hearts" (Here’s Why Hard of Hearing People Feel and Act the Way We Do); "We Hear with Our Eyes" (The Art and Science of Speechreading); and "Successfully Surviving with a Hearing Loss" (Here’s How You Can Do It Right).

In addition to his work as Executive Director of the Center for Hearing Loss Help, Dr. Neil is a member of the Hearing Loss Association of America (HLAA, formerly SHHH), the national organization for people with hearing loss in the USA and a member of the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association (CHHA) in Canada. He was vice-chair of the Governor’s Advisory Council for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing in Pennsylvania (2002-2006). Also, he is a former editor of the award-winning "HearSay," the quarterly newsletter of the Pennsylvania State office of HLAA. (To read his HearSay newsletters, click here.)

Dr. Neil and his wife Diane, who is also hard of hearing, reside in Stewartstown, PA.
 
Last edited:
"I applaud some of Dr. Baumans work, but he is not an ENT, Otologist, Audiologist, his doctorate's are in astronomy and theology."

That may be true, but Dr. Bauman *does* have a congenital severe hearing loss, so he has first hand knowledge of what he is writing about.


I have no doubts he has first hand knowledge and alot to contribute, that's not my point. My point is I'd like to know where he got that classification table (no references)? Was it a reprint from ASHA, AAA, AAO-HNS? Or did he come up with that on his own? If he came up with that on his own, then that is the problem I see. He honestly has no business telling anyone what type/degree of hearing loss they have because he is not qualified to do so. I'm not taking anything away from him, but people need to be careful when giving out information that isn't accurate. I couldn't come up with a new range of normalcy for blood sugare because I have diabetes (just an example).
 
My point is I'd like to know where he got that classification table (no references)? Was it a reprint from ASHA, AAA, AAO-HNS? Or did he come up with that on his own? If he came up with that on his own, then that is the problem I see. He honestly has no business telling anyone what type/degree of hearing loss they have because he is not qualified to do so. I'm not taking anything away from him, but people need to be careful when giving out information that isn't accurate. I couldn't come up with a new range of normalcy for blood sugare because I have diabetes (just an example).

From that perspective, I completely agree with you. :)

I almost considered not posting the article (because of the hearing loss classification information), but changed my mind because I thought Dr. Bauman did an excellent job explaining why hearing loss is calculated in decibels as opposed to percentages.

As for the classification of hearing loss, I've seen many different variations, but the one Dr. Bauman quoted in his article seemed to be "off" by a few decibels not to mention the fact that in my 20+ years of HA use, I've never heard of anyone classifying a 16-25 dB loss as a "slight hearing loss." My understanding (as you already mentioned) has always been that 20 dB or better is considered normal hearing.
 
From that perspective, I completely agree with you. :)

I almost considered not posting the article (because of the hearing loss classification information), but changed my mind because I thought Dr. Bauman did an excellent job explaining why hearing loss is calculated in decibels as opposed to percentages.

As for the classification of hearing loss, I've seen many different variations, but the one Dr. Bauman quoted in his article seemed to be "off" by a few decibels not to mention the fact that in my 20+ years of HA use, I've never heard of anyone classifying a 16-25 dB loss as a "slight hearing loss." My understanding (as you already mentioned) has always been that 20 dB or better is considered normal hearing.



It is a good article (although I know of no ENT or audiologist that tells a patient % hearing loss), I get asked the question all the time, "What percent hearing loss do I have". :D
 
It is a good article (although I know of no ENT or audiologist that tells a patient % hearing loss), I get asked the question all the time, "What percent hearing loss do I have". :D

Yes, it's usually the person with hearing loss who asks that question (and/or makes that determination) rather than the audi. :)
 
I have no doubts he has first hand knowledge and alot to contribute, that's not my point. My point is I'd like to know where he got that classification table (no references)? Was it a reprint from ASHA, AAA, AAO-HNS? Or did he come up with that on his own? If he came up with that on his own, then that is the problem I see. He honestly has no business telling anyone what type/degree of hearing loss they have because he is not qualified to do so. I'm not taking anything away from him, but people need to be careful when giving out information that isn't accurate. I couldn't come up with a new range of normalcy for blood sugare because I have diabetes (just an example).
I wonder if you read that part

(Note that these ranges are arbitrary and may vary slightly among authorities.)
 
Back
Top