Hearing Views

I would bet that every hearing care office that dispenses hearing aids has read almost every article published concerning PSAPs.  If fact, I suspect that many audiologists and dispensers have offered opinions widely and often.  I suspect many of these opinions are anti-PSAP or anti-OTC.  That position is understandable—dogs are being kicked.   At Times Like This, A Prospective View

That response is attributed to Willie Sutton, a famous bank robber of the 1940s and 1950s, when asked why he robbed banks.  I have quoted it a couple of times during my career, not because I robbed banks, but because it is, in essence, brash and logical.    The Logic of Efficiency   It also has some vague application to

by Meagan Lewis, AuD Change is difficult: it’s uncomfortable and it’s challenging. When you’ve counseled patients about hearing aid pricing in a bundled way for years, it takes practice to feel confident in presenting the itemized options- maybe a bit like patting your head and rubbing your belly. However, in representing yourself as the expert on hearing healthcare, it is

by Meagan Lewis, AuD The world is changing, will we? Hearing Aids: The Social Policy View Recent changes at a national level are opening the door for consumers to gain more direct access to hearing technology. The FDA announced that people over the age of 18 no longer need medical clearance to purchase hearing aids. PCAST (Presidential Council of Advisors

by Meagan Lewis, AuD Why? That’s the first question that many have asked when I told them that we were planning to itemize our services May 1 of this year. In fact, that’s the first question our staff asked when we started discussing the idea two years ago. Hearing Aid Price ‘Bundling’ Isn’t New We certainly aren’t the first clinic

For any audiologist thinking about itemizing their statements—known in many circles as “unbundling”—some stories from the past might provide encouragement.  Today, itemization may seem unusual to patients and dangerous to profits, but in past years these actions were common, expected by patients, desirable and profitable.   It further demonstrated that we, as independent clinical providers, were legitimate.  For the most part,

You start with a cage containing four monkeys, and inside the cage you hang a banana on a string, and then you place a set of stairs under the banana. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and climb toward the banana. You then spray ALL the monkeys with cold water.  After a while, another monkey makes an attempt.

It would have been unrealistic for most audiologists to have attended or listened to the entire FTC hearing on April 18th involving over-the-counter and self-fit hearing devices.  Without attendance, many might be left with incomplete summaries or biased opinions.  You should spend some time watching the day’s activities.  If you can’t watch, here are some biased thoughts on what I

Editor’s note: In light of the coming audiology storm, this short piece by Professor Roeser has as much relevance today as it did when it appeared at HearingHealthMatters on August 22, 2012.  One should consider this position in reference to “big box” practices as well as the rehabilitative tasks that audiology has been favorably arguing for at least the past five

I heard a story the other day about an audiologist who bills in a threatening manner. Without going into specifics, this audiologist reportedly over-bills, submitting for tests that appear unnecessary (billed for almost every patient) or redundant (fails to add clinical value). Obviously, this is a case of attempting to make investigational testing cost-effective. Is this action illegal or unethical?