Lawmakers want hearing aids to be easier to get, but doctors object

[EC]

WASHINGTON — Patricia Holland of Waltham suffered a panic attack during a vacation in Savannah, Ga., 13 years ago when she lost her hearing aid and had no way to quickly find a replacement. Almost two weeks later, when she finally got one, she teared up with joy even though she had to hand over $2,600.

“If you have hearing loss, it’s amazing how people make you feel like you’re inferior,” said the 79-year-old, who first learned she had age-related hearing loss in her 60s. “You’re made to feel that you’re not adequate, when you’re really highly intelligent.”

Now new technology and a rare bipartisan push from lawmakers who are trying to reduce regulations for the sale of hearing aids are raising hopes that more people with mild to moderate hearing loss will be able to buy hearing devices a lot more cheaply and without seeing a doctor.

It’s a modest-sounding goal, but supporters believe the measure on Capitol Hill could lower prices, spur innovation, and ultimately get hearing aids into the ears of far more people. Only 15 to 30 percent of people who need hearing aids actually get them, according to some estimates.

Currently, regulations in most states, including Massachusetts, require consumers to go to a licensed audiologist or other specialist to purchase a hearing aid. The average cost: $2,300.

Legislation sponsored by Democratic Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa would supersede individual state rules and force over-the-counter hearing aids into the national market. It has the support of AARP, which is the largest lobbying group for seniors and advocates for people with hearing loss. But it is drawing opposition from hearing aid makers and a major trade association for audiologists.​

Supporters say the bill could unleash competition and put hearing aids that cost a few hundred dollars on the shelves. It could also foster technology that, among other benefits, allows consumers to use smartphones to control their hearing aids.

More: http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2017/04/10/bipartisan-bill-would-make-hearing-aids-cheaper-and-more-accessible-but-some-doctors-object/17H4hx5qSPsPAITu2s997L/story.html

Hell's frozen over. I agree with Warren on something.

[endicom]

I would support the removal of any federal legislation restricting the sale of generic hearing aids. Superseding state laws with federal law is another matter.

[Victoria33]

My Bob has a hearing aid for both ears and it was over $2,000.  Most people can't afford that and go without them.  He is 82.  I am 83 and lucky that my hearing is fine.  You can buy numerous TVs all at one time for way less than a hearing aid - that doesn't seem right.

[Polly Ticks]

My Bob has a hearing aid for both ears and it was over $2,000.  Most people can't afford that and go without them.  He is 82.  I am 83 and lucky that my hearing is fine.  You can buy numerous TVs all at one time for way less than a hearing aid - that doesn't seem right.

My insurance company had three times paid for ear surgery related to my genetic hearing loss issue, to the tune of $50,000+.  Yet they will not even partially cover the cost of hearing aids.  It's kind of crazy.

[GtHawk]

My Bob has a hearing aid for both ears and it was over $2,000.  Most people can't afford that and go without them.  He is 82.  I am 83 and lucky that my hearing is fine.  You can buy numerous TVs all at one time for way less than a hearing aid - that doesn't seem right.

I have almost complete hearing loss in one ear and over 40% loss in the other, a hearing aid is useless for the one so what they recommend is called a crossover system where sound from the dead ear side is transmitted to the hearing side and the brain learns to discern it as stereo hearing. The system is only about 5K and completely unaffordable to me. I started having a profound hearing loss and Tinnitus about 35 years ago, some fun.