By Stephen O. Frazier
The definition of a myth is that it is a widely held but false belief or idea. A recently released paper, “Consumer Survey on Hearing Aid Benefit and Satisfaction,” in the Journal on Speech, Language, and Hearing Research (JSLHR) presents data, drawn from a survey of 2,109 participants in 2018, applicable to two popular myths.
The first is the time that elapses between onset of hearing loss and getting treated for it, generally regarded as being seven to 10 years; and the second is the cost of a pair of hearing aids, thought to be $3,000 to $4,000.
The JSLHR paper found that the majority of participants surveyed take action relatively soon after acknowledging a hearing loss and getting their hearing tested. After a hearing test, 43 percent of respondents reported having acquired hearing aids within less than a year and another 11 percent within two years. Only 3.7 percent of the survey respondents waited four or more years to address their loss.
The unreported and consequently unknown time period here is the interval between when individuals realize they may have a measurable hearing loss and when they got a hearing test.
The myth dealing with the actual cost of hearing aids is kept alive by reports such as the one by Sandra Gordon on Forbes.com titled “The Actual Cost of Hearing Aids in 2023.” Gordon reported that consumers in the market for hearing aids should “be prepared to shell out $4,000 to $8,000 for a pair.” The JSLHR paper found respondents spent between $2,750 and $5,737 per pair, with a median cost of $4,000.
Even these figures can be very misleading, though, as they are based on what some people are actually spending rather than the average or the median cost of a pair of hearing aids being offered for sale. It is the decisions of buyers as to which hearing aids they will buy and where they will buy them that inflates the “cost of hearing aids” that’s reported in the media.
This figure is also skewered by the fact that, though they represent only about 10 percent of people with hearing loss, those with a severe to profound hearing loss represented over half (55.1 percent) of the respondents in the JSLHR survey, and they are the people who require more high tech (and more expensive) hearing aids to meet their needs.
Also affecting the results was the place of purchase decisions made by the respondents: 57 percent purchased their hearing aids at a local, private clinic, while 12 percent did so at half price discounters like Costco or Sam’s Club, and 3.8 percent opted to go to an online discounter where they could reduce the cost by 20 to 30 percent.
Not including over-the-counter or online hearing aids, a pair of good quality FDA-approved prescription hearing aids can be bought for $1,599 at Costco or up to twice that much for identical hearing aids at a private clinic. Even at private clinics, the majority of clients opt for more expensive devices than those in the opening price range and this pushes up both the median and the average price actually paid for hearing aids.
The JSLHR paper reports that 54 percent of respondents opted to purchase the top end devices recommended by their provider and another 34 percent selected a pair in the mid-price range. This left only 12 percent who chose the opening price devices so, of course, the average sale by the provider was much higher than the average price of the hearing aids on offer.
Another interesting statistic in the survey was the fact that 75 percent of the participants elected to go to an audiologist for service compared with 20 percent who visited a hearing instrument specialist. It’s interesting to note that there are 9,084 audiologists and 10,790 hearing instrument specialists (that is, roughly even numbers) currently practicing in the U.S.
Satisfaction and Benefits
Perceived benefits afforded by their hearing aids directly affect how satisfied survey participants were with their hearing aids. More than three quarters or 77.5 percent of respondents indicated the benefit obtained from their hearing aids was “good” or even “vast.” As to what specific benefits were derived, the question was never asked.
About one in five or 19.5 percent of respondents reported they experienced only limited benefit, with the remainder apparently not feeling they had benefited at all from ownership of hearing aids. As for the satisfaction provided by the perceived benefits of hearing aids, 64.3 percent reported they were “very satisfied” with their hearing aids, 25.6 percent said they were somewhat satisfied, and 10.1 percent “not satisfied” with their hearing aids.
Though the information was included in the questionnaire, missing from the report made available from the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association was a list of features contained in the hearing aids used by those being surveyed. It would also have been instructive were those responses broken down by degree of hearing loss and by the number of years of hearing aid use (41 percent of respondents had worn hearing aids for over 15 years and an additional 12 percent had done so for between 10 and 15 years).
Comparing the results from these two groups with those for the other half of respondents would have shown whether the more experienced and often more severely disabled participants were more inclined to be aware, for example, of telecoils in their hearing aids than others. In addition, other capabilities asked about but not then reported were Android and/or iPhone compatibility, disposable vs. rechargeable batteries, and volume control.
Also surveyed but overlooked in the report was a breakdown of what accessories were selected to supplement the use of hearing aids. Those asked about in the survey questions included various Bluetooth streamers, remote mics or controls, and battery chargers.
Brand ownership found Phonak ranking number one with 25 percent of the respondents wearing that brand, with Oticon next at 19 percent and ReSound at 14 percent. All other brands rated only in the single digits. As for insurance coverage, 73 percent of respondents reported having no insurance coverage for hearing aids and only 6 percent were fully covered.
The stated purpose of the survey was “to evaluate determinants of hearing aid benefit and satisfaction ratings using a large-scale customer survey, and to analyze the relation between demographic variables, hearing aid attributes, benefit, and satisfaction.” That evaluation included reviewing statistics that the degree of self-perceived hearing loss, the degree of experience with the devices, and the technology level all play major roles in determining benefit.
Age, employment, and even hearing aid brand affected satisfaction with those using certain brands reporting great satisfaction, according to the report, but which brands were not detailed in the report. In addition, the paper’s authors indicated that an analysis of data gathered in the survey might help in patient-centered strategies that would result in improved outcomes of audiological care but did not suggest what those strategies might be. Perhaps additional data will be forthcoming.
The paper “Consumer Survey on Hearing Aid Benefit and Satisfaction” is by Larissa Bannon, Au.D., Erin M. Picou, Au.D., Ph.D., Abram Bailey, Au.D., of Hearing Tracker, and Vinaya Manchaiah, Au.D., Ph.D.
Trained by the Hearing Loss Association of America as a hearing loss support specialist, staff writer and New Mexico resident Stephen O. Frazier (left) has served HLAA and others at the local, state, and national levels as a volunteer in their efforts to improve communication access for people with hearing loss. Contact him at hlaanm@juno.com. For more, see sofnabq.com and loopnm.com.
The Latest Blog Posts
The causes behind residual hearing loss following cochlear implantation are complex and varied. Studies such as this one provide clues as to what to focus on in order to improve the acoustic experience of cochlear implant recipients.