The Economics of Cochlear Implants and Deafness?

[I_Have_Big_Nose]

Hi Everyone!!!!!

I'm a deaf college student doing my honors thesis. I'm studying Economics, and for my thesis, I chose to analyze the economics of deafness and cochlear implants. If you're deaf but don't have an implant or do, I'd LOVE to hear from you on my survey.

Do you think implants are bad economically for individual people? Do you think they help? Let me know!

The survey is at The Economics of Deafness and Cochlear Implants

Thanks so much!!!!

 

[flip]

Hi Everyone!!!!!

I'm a deaf college student doing my honors thesis. I'm studying Economics, and for my thesis, I chose to analyze the economics of deafness and cochlear implants. If you're deaf but don't have an implant or do, I'd LOVE to hear from you on my survey.

Do you think implants are bad economically for individual people? Do you think they help? Let me know!

The survey is at The Economics of Deafness and Cochlear Implants

Thanks so much!!!!

Interesting, hope you can inform us on the results of this one

There has been a survey in europe, revelaing that those who was more fluent in sign language had a better income than those less fluent, deaf or HOH. Could be interesting to compare what makes the biggest difference, CI/not CI or fluency in ASL.

Keep up the great work.

 

[deafskeptic]

Interesting, hope you can inform us on the results of this one

There has been a survey in europe, revelaing that those who was more fluent in sign language had a better income than those less fluent, deaf or HOH. Could be interesting to compare what makes the biggest difference, CI/not CI or fluency in ASL.

Keep up the great work.

Wow, that sounds interesting. I'd put my money on ASL. As awesome as CIs are, it only offers partial access to spoken language in many cases.

 

[jillio]

I've also read a couple of papers from the medical community stating that CI was considered to be more cost effective because it reduced the need for additional academic accommodations. Can't cite them right off, due to the fact that it was some time ago. I thinkt his is being disproved by the number of students with CI that continue to need transcription and/or interpreting services.

 

[flip]

Don't want to influence the student here too much, but it's interesting that in denmark, the unemployment rate of deaf people have soared to 50 percent the same time mainstream programs have rised and CI have becomed the most common tool of deaf education. This is what some of the extreme oralists on this board want for us deaf people and their own children.

I will need to find those papers somewhere so I can share with you.

 

[neecy]

Finished doing your survey, hope you will share the results with us once you finish your paper!

 

[deafskeptic]

I've done the survey as well and I had to put other in the education section as I went to 8 different schools before I was 18. I've been in the oral program and mainstreamed and I've attended signing schools for the deaf. Had there been a mark saying a mix of the above, I'd have selected that instead of other.

 

[Aleser]

I don't know what to put in the "where I'm from" box. Do you mean where I'm born, where I hold citizenships, or where I currently live, or something else entirely.

 

[R2D2]

I've also read a couple of papers from the medical community stating that CI was considered to be more cost effective because it reduced the need for additional academic accommodations. Can't cite them right off, due to the fact that it was some time ago. I thinkt his is being disproved by the number of students with CI that continue to need transcription and/or interpreting services.

I assume the difference in cost is reflected in the fact that most CI students, even if they need a lot of accommodations, are operating in a mainstream environment compared to a school for the deaf. It's "cheaper" for the child to fit into vacant places in the local setting and live at home compared to setting up a whole school for the deaf for an increasingly smaller population.

Since the deaf population in general is falling compared to the past due to declining fertility and improved medical care, there would be a greater need for boarding at deaf schools, since they would be fewer and further in between. Also deaf school populations themselves are quite small now. I'm not sure about the US, but the deaf school that my nephew attended only had about 80 students from age 5 to 18. Many of them resided there too, so it's not difficult to see how it's considerably more costly than an accommodated mainstream setting.

This is not an argument as such of mainstream vs deaf school, because there are additional qualititive and moral factors that might come into those arguments but as someone who did economics at university I can see why deaf schools cost a lot more to run than mainstreaming with accommodations, due to lack of economies of scale.

 

[neecy]

I don't know what to put in the "where I'm from" box. Do you mean where I'm born, where I hold citizenships, or where I currently live, or something else entirely.

I'd assume he meant where you currently reside.

 

[deafdyke]

revelaing that those who was more fluent in sign language had a better income than those less fluent, deaf or HOH. Could be interesting to compare what makes the biggest difference, CI/not CI or fluency in ASL.

Oh......just like how Braille wasn't taught in blind/low vision eduction, but yet they've found that fluency in Braille is pretty much key to employment!

 

[shel90]

Oh......just like how Braille wasn't taught in blind/low vision eduction, but yet they've found that fluency in Braille is pretty much key to employment!

Why wouldnt they use Braille in blind/low vision education. Those kinds of approaches do not make sense just like oral-only education. I dont understand what is so wrong with giving kids the tools using their strongest sense??

 

[loml]

There has been a survey in europe, revelaing that those who was more fluent in sign language had a better income than those less fluent, deaf or HOH.

flip - Very broad statement, you make here.. Certainly leaves lots of questions unanswered. Got a link to your aboved mentioned survey or a journal name and issue date?

 

[I_Have_Big_Nose]

Hi, all. Thanks for your contributions to the survey! They're all a wonderful help, keep them coming!

Flip (and everyone else): There are some interesting studies that show a higher level of self-confidence in individuals who use signing than those who don't in the US too. One way to examine that is to ask if that translates, for example, into a stronger "go-getter" attitude and therefore more career opportunity and economic well-being? How does that compare with implantees? Do implantees do best (when accounting for socioeconomic status), do signers do best, or are the returns really "roughly" equal?

Add on another layer: do people who use both implants and sign language combine the best of both worlds for opportunity and economic well-being? Are the returns higher for this group than any other group (CI-only, sign-only)?

There are so many other questions, many of which go beyond the scope of my survey. It all leads to a fascinating discussion!

 

[loml]

There are some interesting studies that show a higher level of self-confidence in individuals who use signing than those who don't. One way to examine that is to ask if that translates, for example, into a stronger "go-getter" attitude and therefore more career opportunity and economic well-being? How does that compare with implantees?

Do you have a link to these studies? I would like to read them. Thanks.

 

[sr171soars]

...

Do you think implants are bad economically for individual people? Do you think they help? Let me know!

...

From my perspective, it is a no brainer! I benefit from having a CI much more than I ever could without it. In actuality, my career ceiling has lifted quite a bit as the phone is no longer an issue for me. Not that I was doing too bad to begin with but the "barriers" are now basically gone.

 

[shel90]

Hi, all. Thanks for your contributions to the survey! They're all a wonderful help, keep them coming!

Flip (and everyone else): There are some interesting studies that show a higher level of self-confidence in individuals who use signing than those who don't in the US too. One way to examine that is to ask if that translates, for example, into a stronger "go-getter" attitude and therefore more career opportunity and economic well-being? How does that compare with implantees? Do implantees do best (when accounting for socioeconomic status), do signers do best, or are the returns really "roughly" equal?

Add on another layer: do people who use both implants and sign language combine the best of both worlds for opportunity and economic well-being? Are the returns higher for this group than any other group (CI-only, sign-only)?

There are so many other questions, many of which go beyond the scope of my survey. It all leads to a fascinating discussion!

Would make sense that people with implants and use sign language/spoken language would have the best of both worlds depending on how much the individual benefits from their CIs. My aide is one of them (socially but economically, no, but that is due to her personal issues, not with her CI nor her deafness).

 

[R2D2]

Hi, all. Thanks for your contributions to the survey! They're all a wonderful help, keep them coming!

Flip (and everyone else): There are some interesting studies that show a higher level of self-confidence in individuals who use signing than those who don't in the US too. One way to examine that is to ask if that translates, for example, into a stronger "go-getter" attitude and therefore more career opportunity and economic well-being? How does that compare with implantees? Do implantees do best (when accounting for socioeconomic status), do signers do best, or are the returns really "roughly" equal?

Here is a couple of abstracts about how CIers felt happier and more satisfied compared to before CI. Maybe as you are in further education you can get access to the full studies? I'm not sure if there is a study out there that compare happiness of CI users and signers. Many CI users use both sign and oral communication depending on their circumstances. We are a pretty diverse lot.

Good luck with your research!

Cochlear Implants Int. 2007 Jun;8(2):87-91.

Patient employment status and satisfaction following cochlear implantation.
Fazel MZ, Gray RF.

Department of Surgery, Middlesex Hospital, London, UK. maisam.fazel@rcsed.ac.uk

The aim of this study was to look at the effect on employment and employee perception of career opportunities after receiving a cochlear implant. Retrospective analysis based on a patient questionnaire was conducted. Eighty patients were identified: 65 (81.3%) participated in the questionnaire. Forty-five patients (69.2%) were working prior to implant compared to 54 (83.9%) after implant. Job satisfaction rating rose from 5.56 to 6.82 following cochlear implantation. Twenty patients (30.8%) were unemployed prior to surgery while 11 (16.9%) remained unemployed post implantation. Twenty-six patients (57.7%) from the working group believed that their hearing disability had affected their career, while 18 (40%) from the same group believed that receiving the cochlear implant significantly improved their career prospects. Cochlear implantation is associated with an improved chance of being employed. It also helps with improved job satisfaction as well as improving employee perception of their career prospects.

Here is another abstract although it's older:

J Otolaryngol. 2004 Feb;33(1):26-31.

Benefits of cochlear implantation in early-deafened adults: the Toronto experience.
Chee GH, Goldring JE, Shipp DB, Ng AH, Chen JM, Nedzelski JM.

Department of Otolaryngology, Sunnybrook & Women's College Health Science Centre, Toronto, Ontario.

OBJECTIVE: To present the results of a survey administered to a group of early-deafened cochlear implants adults and to report the level of perceived benefit. DESIGN: Prospective. SETTING: Large tertiary referral centre. METHOD: A 47-item questionnaire designed to evaluate cochlear implant use and benefit was sent to 42 early-deafened adult cochlear implant users. The questionnaire can be divided into seven subcategories: time of use, associated symptoms, communication, employment status and function, socialization, perceived benefit, and the impact on quality of life. Responses from 30 patients were received. RESULTS: The majority of our patients use their cochlear implant all of their waking hours. The majority of patients continue to depend on lip-reading and hearing as their main mode of communication, although they reported improved lip-reading skills with their cochlear implant. Twenty-three patients (76.7%) were employed. Eleven patients had a change in employment subsequent to cochlear implantation, nine (81.8%) of whom attributed this to their cochlear implant. Our patients als reported greater independence, a greater sense of safety in their environment, and an improved social life. Twenty-nine patients (96.7%) said that they were satisfied with their implant, 28 (93.3%) said that they would go through the same process again, and 27 (90%) said that they would recommend it to a friend in a similar situation. Twenty-nine patients (96.7%) stated that the cochlear implant has had a positive effect on their quality of life. Family and peer support, prior auditory-verbal therapy, and a positive attitude were the most commonly cited factors in successful cochlear implant use. CONCLUSIONS: Early-deafened adult cochlear implant users perceive significant benefit from cochlear implantation. Importantly, family and peer support, prior auditory-verbal therapy, and a positive attitude are considered important factors in maximizing this benefit.

 

[jillio]

I assume the difference in cost is reflected in the fact that most CI students, even if they need a lot of accommodations, are operating in a mainstream environment compared to a school for the deaf. It's "cheaper" for the child to fit into vacant places in the local setting and live at home compared to setting up a whole school for the deaf for an increasingly smaller population.

Since the deaf population in general is falling compared to the past due to declining fertility and improved medical care, there would be a greater need for boarding at deaf schools, since they would be fewer and further in between. Also deaf school populations themselves are quite small now. I'm not sure about the US, but the deaf school that my nephew attended only had about 80 students from age 5 to 18. Many of them resided there too, so it's not difficult to see how it's considerably more costly than an accommodated mainstream setting.

This is not an argument as such of mainstream vs deaf school, because there are additional qualititive and moral factors that might come into those arguments but as someone who did economics at university I can see why deaf schools cost a lot more to run than mainstreaming with accommodations, due to lack of economies of scale.

Granted, there are numerous factors that would make a residential school more expensive to run. But when you start figuring in costs like $60,000 a year to provide CART services for one student in one district, the cost effectiveness certainly goes down. And with the number of students using CI that still require terp services, notetakers, etc., it would appear that, at least where the educational environment is concerned, CI is not more cost effective than HA.

 

[jillio]

Hi, all. Thanks for your contributions to the survey! They're all a wonderful help, keep them coming!

Flip (and everyone else): There are some interesting studies that show a higher level of self-confidence in individuals who use signing than those who don't in the US too. One way to examine that is to ask if that translates, for example, into a stronger "go-getter" attitude and therefore more career opportunity and economic well-being? How does that compare with implantees? Do implantees do best (when accounting for socioeconomic status), do signers do best, or are the returns really "roughly" equal?

Add on another layer: do people who use both implants and sign language combine the best of both worlds for opportunity and economic well-being? Are the returns higher for this group than any other group (CI-only, sign-only)?



There are some interesting studies that indicate that the individuals receiving most beneift from CI, both socially and academically, are those that use a combination of speech and sign as well.