Purchase Hearing Aids Research Articles

Effects of speech tracking method using hearing aids for hearing disorder in older people.

Speech tracking is defined as a complex act or task of listening in which the learner tracks the speech heard and repeats it as accurately as possible while paying attention to incoming contextual information. This ability involves auditory input, speech output, repetition, and divided attention. In this small-scale study, we aimed to use a speech-tracking method to train older adults with hearing loss and examine its effects on hearing loss from multiple perspectives, including hearing handicap, frailty, and neuropsychological testing. Auditory rehabilitation was provided to older patients who purchased hearing aids at the clinic and wanted to engage in rehabilitation. The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly, Nursing Home Hearing Handicap Index, speech-tracking rate, Token Test, Communication Activities of Daily Living, Kihon Checklist, Mini-Mental State Examination, Digit Symbol Substitution Test, symbol search, and word recall were used for assessments before and after rehabilitation using the speech-tracking method. Changes in scores of each assessment item and sub-item were examined using Wilcoxon's signed-rank test, and changes per question were examined using the sign test. The speech tracking rate (p<0.001), Token Test score (p<0.001), and Mini-Mental State Examination score (p=0.035) improved significantly after the training. Notably, the speech-tracking rate improved for 31 of the 33 participants, with a maximum increase of 19.6 phrases per minute. The combination of a hearing aid and the speech-tracking method improved auditory comprehension.

新設補聴器外来における補聴器購入・非購入患者の検討

In the era of the super aging society, with the increasing number of patients with age-related hearing loss, there is a high demand for hearing aids. Furthermore, recent reports of the existence of an association between hearing loss and progression of dementia underscore the importance of fulfilling the needs for hearing aids. Our institute, a core hospital in the aging community, started a specialized outpatient clinic for prescribing hearing aids in 2017. In this study, we analyzed the accumulated clinical data of 178 patients who came to the clinic between October 2017 and December 2020. While a total of 154 patients (87%) were willing to start using hearing aids at the first visit, only 99 patients (55%) finally purchased hearing aids. The patient background characteristics were not significantly different between patients who purchased and did not purchase hearing aids, whereas the motivation for wearing hearing aids and the number of visits required for determining whether hearing aids should be worn or not were significantly higher among patients who finally purchased hearing aids. The top three reasons for not purchasing hearing aids were 1) not feeling the necessity (28%), 2) financial difficulties (22%), and 3) inability to adapt to hearing aids (18%). Although our institute introduced hearing rehabilitation, the proportion of patients who purchased hearing aids was relatively low as compared with previous reports; that could be attributable to the lack of systematic operation of the specialized outpatient clinic, including absence of established criteria to determine the duration of rehabilitation and lack of cooperation with speech therapists. On the other hand, the patient’s motivation and financial support were highly important for successful starting of hearing-aid wearing, considering the reasons for dropout from treatment. Taken together, establishing a protocol for hearing rehabilitation and patient education for hearing loss are important for improving the success rate in hearing aid treatment.

Hearing aids come to the pharmacy

On August 16, 2022, FDA finalized a historic rule enabling OTC access to hearing aids. The rule establishes a new category of OTC hearing aids and will allow patients with hearing loss to purchase hearing aids directly from stores or online retailers without the need for a medical exam, prescription, or visit to an audiologist.

OTC hearing aids: An opportunity for collaborative working relationships between pharmacists and audiologists

In 2017, the United States Food and Drug Administration Reauthorization Act created a new category of hearing aids to be sold over the counter (OTC), disrupting how nearly 30 million persons with hearing loss will seek and purchase hearing aids. Laws and regulations do not require a medical evaluation or an appointment with an audiologist prior to purchasing OTC hearing aids. However, it is likely that patients will approach pharmacists with questions about OTC hearing aids when considering these devices available at the community pharmacy. The objective of this commentary is to discuss the opportunity for collaborative working relationships between pharmacists and audiologists in the context of OTC hearing aids. The most relevant barriers to pharmacist/audiologist collaboration are turf concerns, lack of trust, and distance between practice sites. OTC hearing aids can positively impact hearing health care across the nation with successful collaboration between the professions of pharmacy and audiology.

Retrospective evaluation of secondary effects of hearing aids for tinnitus therapy in patients with hearing loss

ObjectiveAcoustic therapies including hearing aids and tinnitus control instruments are widely used in Japan but without high levels of evidence. The outpatient hearing aid clinic at our institution fits patients with hearing aids and instructs patients on how to use them to control tinnitus if present. In this study, we examined the effects of this approach on tinnitus. MethodsOne hundred and eleven of 138 patients who visited our hearing aid clinic from April 2016 to September 2018 purchased hearing aids after fitting. Sixty-six of these patients (31 men, 35 women; mean age 78.0 ± 8.0 years) had both hearing loss and tinnitus and were enrolled. The tinnitus was bilateral in 41 patients and unilateral in 25 (poor hearing ear, n = 16, good hearing ear, n = 9). Hearing aids were worn bilaterally by 23 patients and unilaterally by 43 (89 devices). Seventeen of the 23 patients wearing bilateral hearing aids had bilateral tinnitus and 6 had unilateral tinnitus, i.e., in 40 ears, the tinnitus side matched the hearing aid side (40 devices) and in 6 ears did not (6 devices). Twenty-four of 43 patients wearing unilateral hearing aids had bilateral tinnitus, meaning that in 24 ears the tinnitus side matched the hearing aid side (24 devices). In six of the remaining 19 cases with unilateral tinnitus, the hearing aid and tinnitus were on the same side (6 devices) and in 13 were on opposite sides (13 devices). Changes in the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI), visual analog scale (VAS, for tinnitus discomfort, severity, and persistence), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores were measured immediately before using a hearing aid and 12 months later. ResultsSignificant effects of hearing aids on tinnitus were observed in all subjects (THI, p = 0.0000030), VAS (severity, p = 0.000000066; discomfort, p = 0.0000013). Significant effects were observed with bilateral hearing aids (THI, p = 0.0012; VAS for severity, p = 0.00069; VAS for discomfort, p = 0.00052) and with unilateral hearing aids (THI, p = 0.00055; VAS for severity, p = 0.000034; VAS for discomfort, p = 0.00007). Spearman's rank correlation coefficient showed a significant positive correlation between the THI and VAS scores (p = 0.0033). In cases of bilateral tinnitus, significant differences were observed with bilateral hearing aids (THI, p = 0.011; VAS for severity, p = 0.0019; VAS for discomfort; p = 0.020) and with unilateral hearing aids (THI, p = 0.00069; VAS for severity, p = 0.00071; VAS for discomfort, p = 0.000093). ConclusionAcoustic therapy using hearing aids was effective for tinnitus. Even when bilateral, a unilateral hearing aid is able to improve tinnitus. When unilateral, the ipsilateral hearing aid is able to improve tinnitus.

A Follow-Up Clinical Trial Evaluating the Consumer-Decides Service Delivery Model.

ObjectivesThere were 2 main objectives. The primary objective was to replicate a prior clinical trial of a consumer-decides (CD) approach to selecting hearing aids in older adults as a potential model for over-the-counter (OTC) intervention using less front-end screening of participants and a wider range of frequency-gain characteristics in the devices. The 2nd objective, only feasible if participant choices allowed, was to evaluate the efficacy of the CD approach relative to a CD-based placebo device.DesignThe design of this study is a single-site, prospective, double-blind clinical trial. Outcome measures were obtained after a typical 4- to 5-week trial period. An optional follow-up of a 4-week audiology-based (AB) best practices trial was also included for replication and comparison purposes.SettingOlder adults from the general community were recruited via newspaper and community flyers to participate at a university research clinic.ParticipantsParticipants were adults, aged 54–78 years, with mild–moderate hearing loss. Forty-one participants enrolled as a volunteer sample; 40 completed the intervention.Intervention(s)All participants received the same high-end digital mini–behind-the-ear hearing aids fitted bilaterally. CD participants self-selected their own preprogrammed hearing aids via an OTC-type model. One of the 3 devices from which participants could choose was programmed to be a placebo device with no functional gain.Primary and Secondary Outcome MeasuresThe primary outcome measure is the 66-item self-report Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (Cox & Alexander, 1990). The secondary outcome measure is the Connected Speech Test (Cox, Alexander, & Gilmore, 1987) benefit. Additional measures of hearing aid benefit and usage were also obtained.ResultsPer-protocol analyses based on the data from the 40 (of 41) participants who completed the study were performed. Hearing aid outcomes from this follow-up CD (CD2) cohort were positive and generally the same as for the original CD cohort. CD service delivery model was efficacious relative to CD-based placebo control, with medium effect sizes observed. Approximately half of the CD2 group was likely to purchase hearing aids after the trial, similar to findings for the original CD cohort. Outcomes improved significantly for the 32 CD2 participants who elected to complete the optional 4-week AB trial. For this largely unscreened sample, more individuals with healthy hearing sought amplification, and many of these individuals (35%) chose placebo devices for both ears.ConclusionsPrior positive outcomes for CD service delivery have been replicated in a less restrictive approach to participant recruitment. The CD approach was again found to be efficacious. Significantly better outcomes were observed after subsequent AB service delivery follow-up, also replicating prior findings. Efficacious OTC models, including those using similar CD approaches to hearing aid self-selection, may increase accessibility and affordability of hearing aids for millions of older adults. Front-end guidance to consumers regarding the best path to intervention, ranging from self-screening of hearing online to a full audiologic assessment, appears to be critical to optimize the success of OTC approaches.Trial RegistrationClinicaltrials.gov: NCT01788432; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01788423Supplemental Materialhttps://doi.org/10.23641/asha.7728479

Access To Hearing Care Services Among Older Medicare Beneficiaries Using Hearing Aids.

The Over-the-Counter Hearing Aid Act of 2017 will soon allow people to purchase hearing aids without an audiologist or hearing aid dispenser acting as a go-between. Under this new arrangement there will be no guarantee that purchasers with hearing loss will have access to the hearing care services that are often needed to optimize hearing and communication with the devices. Using data for 2013 from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, we examined existing barriers to accessing those services among older Medicare beneficiaries who owned and used hearing aids. Within this population, beneficiaries who were dually eligible for Medicaid had 41percent lower odds of using hearing care services and were twice as likely to report having a lot of trouble hearing with their aids, compared to high-income Medicare beneficiaries. Existing barriers to device owners' receiving hearing care services are likely to be exacerbated when over-the-counter sales further separate the purchase of hearing aids from payment for supportive services. Coverage of hearing care services under the Medicare program should be considered to address income-related constraints to service access.

Tackling the Toll of Hearing Loss on Executive Function

Tackling the Toll of Hearing Loss on Executive Function

Applications of direct-to-consumer hearing devices for adults with hearing loss: a review.

BackgroundThis systematic literature review is aimed at investigating applications of direct-to-consumer hearing devices for adults with hearing loss. This review discusses three categories of direct-to-consumer hearing devices: 1) personal sound amplification products (PSAPs), 2) direct-mail hearing aids, and 3) over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids.MethodA literature review was conducted using EBSCOhost and included the databases CINAHL, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO. After applying prior agreed inclusion and exclusion criteria, 13 reports were included in the review.ResultsIncluded studies fell into three domains: 1) electroacoustic characteristics, 2) consumer surveys, and 3) outcome evaluations. Electroacoustic characteristics of these devices vary significantly with some meeting the stringent acoustic criteria used for hearing aids, while others producing dangerous output levels (ie, over 120-dB sound pressure level). Low-end (or low-cost) devices were typically poor in acoustic quality and did not meet gain levels necessary for most adult and elderly hearing loss patterns (eg, presbycusis), especially in high frequencies. Despite direct-mail hearing aids and PSAPs being associated with lower satisfaction when compared to hearing aids purchased through hearing health care professionals, consumer surveys suggest that 5%–19% of people with hearing loss purchase hearing aids through direct-mail or online. Studies on outcome evaluation suggest positive outcomes of OTC devices in the elderly population. Of note, OTC outcomes appear better when a hearing health care professional supports these users.ConclusionWhile some direct-to-consumer hearing devices have the capability to produce adverse effects due to production of dangerously high sound levels and internal noise, the existing literature suggests that there are potential benefits of these devices. Research of direct-to-consumer hearing devices is limited, and current published studies are of weak quality. Much effort is needed to understand the benefits and limitations of such devices on people with hearing loss.

The Effects of Service-Delivery Model and Purchase Price on Hearing-Aid Outcomes in Older Adults: A Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial.

ObjectivesThe objectives of this study were to determine efficacy of hearing aids in older adults using audiology best practices, to evaluate the efficacy of an alternative over-the-counter (OTC) intervention, and to examine the influence of purchase price on outcomes for both service-delivery models.DesignThe design of this study was a single-site, prospective, double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial with three parallel branches: (a) audiology best practices (AB), (b) consumer decides OTC model (CD), and (c) placebo devices (P). Outcome measures were obtained after a typical 6-week trial period with follow-up 4-week AB-based trial for those initially assigned to CD and P groups.SettingOlder adults from the general community were recruited via newspaper and community flyers to participate at a university research clinic.ParticipantsParticipants were adults, ages 55–79 years, with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. There were 188 eligible participants: 163 enrolled as a volunteer sample, and 154 completed the intervention.Intervention(s)All participants received the same high-end digital mini-behind-the-ear hearing aids fitted bilaterally. AB and P groups received best-practice services from audiologists; differing mainly in use of appropriate (AB) or placebo (P) hearing aid settings. CD participants self-selected their own pre-programmed hearing aids via an OTC model.Primary and Secondary Outcome MeasuresPrimary outcome measure was a 66-item self-report, Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (Cox & Gilmore, 1990). Secondary outcome measure was the Connected Speech Test (Cox, Alexander, & Gilmore, 1987) benefit. Additional measures of hearing-aid benefit, satisfaction, and usage were also obtained.ResultsPer-protocol analyses were performed. AB service-delivery model was found to be efficacious for most of the outcome measures, with moderate or large effect sizes (Cohen's d). CD service-delivery model was efficacious, with similar effect sizes. However, CD group had a significantly (p < .05) lower satisfaction and percentage (CD: 55%; AB: 81%; P: 36%) likely to purchase hearing aids after the trial.ConclusionsHearing aids are efficacious in older adults for both AB and CD service-delivery models. CD model of OTC service delivery yielded only slightly poorer outcomes than the AB model. Efficacious OTC models may increase accessibility and affordability of hearing aids for millions of older adults. Purchase price had no effect on outcomes, but a high percentage of those who rejected hearing aids paid the typical price (85%).Trial RegistrationClinicaltrials.gov: NCT01788432; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01788423 Supplemental Materials https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.5382499

The Effect of Limited Counseling Time on Hearing Aid Uptake

Background and Objectives To determine appropriate counseling time for the first hearing aids user, we measured the effectiveness of first counseling time limit of 20 minutes for those who need hearing aids and collected predictive parameters during history taking. Subjects and Method We reviewed the medical records of 956 patients (age 66.5±12.1) with hearing impairment who needed hearing aids. We divided patients into two groups, those who had counseling time limited to 20 minutes and others who had no time limitation. Job status, working condition of noise status, social activity and audiological variables were analyzed as probable predicting factors influencing the purchasing of the hearing aid (penetration rate). Results Of the total 956 patients, 48.64% of subjects decided to purchase hearing aids at first counseling. The two groups showed no significant difference (p=0.396): 49.81% of the group without time limitation purchased the hearing aid and 47.04% of those with time limitation purchased the aid. The social status, right side pure tone threshold and right side tinnitus were significant for calculating the explanation power (64.15%) in the hearing aid uptake probability equation. Conclusion The level of social activity, hearing threshold and tinnitus were predictive variables obtained during the counseling. The time limitation of 20 minutes did not affect the rate of decision to purchase hearing aids. These results might help hearing clinics improve efficient time management at hearing aid clinics. Key words: Counseling ㆍ Hearing aids

Current State of Hearing Aid Clinic

We retrospectively analyzed the data of 387 patients who had no previous experience of using hearing aids, seen between 2009 and 2013 (164 males and 223 females). The average age of the overall subject population was 77.3 years (range 34 to 96 years); gender-wise, the average age of the males was 76.5 years (range 49 to 96), while that of the females was 77.9 (range 34 to 94). Of the 387 patients, 289 purchased hearing aids, representing a purchase rate of 74.7% during the five-year period, with the rate increasing year on year. The average hearing level of the ear for which the hearing aid was used was 61.5 dBHL ((500 Hz+1000 Hz+1000 Hz+2000 Hz)/4). The average hearing level of the patients who purchased a hearing aid was 64.2 dBHL, while that of the patient who didn’t purchase a hearing aid was 52.9 dBHL, with the hearing level in the former group being significantly higher than that in the latter group (p<0.05). In all, 37 patients wore hearing aids for both ears, representing a rate of use of bilateral hearing aids of 12.8%. We had aimed at providing hearing aids on rent for approximately two months. However, the mean rental period in patients who purchased hearing aids was 88.5 days.

Self-Assessment of Hearing and Purchase of Hearing Aids by Middle-Aged and Elderly Adults.

Introduction Presbycusis is a consequence of aging. Prescription of hearing aids is part of the treatment, although the prevalence of use by elderly people is still small. Objective To verify whether or not self-assessment of hearing is a predictor for purchase of hearing aids. Methods Quantitative, cross-sectional, descriptive, and observational study. Participants were subjects who sought a private hearing center for selection of hearing aids. During the diagnostic interview, subjects answered the following question: “On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the worst and 10 the best, how would you rate your overall hearing ability?” After that, subjects underwent audiometry, selected a hearing aid, performed a home trial, and decided whether or not to purchase the hearing aid. The variables were associated and analyzed statistically. Results The sample was comprised of 32 subjects, both men and women, with a higher number of women. Mean age was 71.41 ± 12.14 years. Self-assessment of hearing ranged from 2 to 9 points. Overall, 71.9% of the subjects purchased hearing aids. There was no association between scores in the self-assessment and the purchase of hearing aids (p = 0.263). Among those who scored between 2 and 5 points, 64.7% purchased the device; between 6 and 7 points, 76.09% purchased the device; and between 8 and 9 points, 50% purchased the device, respectively. Conclusion There is evidence that low self-assessment scores lead to the purchase of hearing aids, although no significant association was observed in the sample.

A study of delayed purchases of enabling products in the United States: the case of hearings aids

ABSTRACTAlthough hearing loss afflicts millions of adults globally, most of them elderly, a relatively small percentage of them purchase hearing aids, and buyers regularly delay purchase for years. This study provides explanations for the likelihood and timing of the purchase of hearing aids. Data from a large‐scale national mail survey of 507 hearing‐impaired persons in the United States reveal that consumers do not make decisions in a time vacuum or in isolation from previous life experiences. Rather, their hearing aid purchase decision is time dependent, and time exerts different effects on consumers depending on their stage in life. Because hearing impairment is a condition experienced by consumers globally, the study findings have implications for theory and practice worldwide.

Comparisons of client and clinician views of the importance of factors in client-clinician interaction in hearing aid purchase decisions.

Despite clinical recognition of the adverse effects of acquired hearing loss, only a small proportion of adults who could benefit use hearing aids. Hearing aid adoption has been studied in relationship to client-related and hearing aid technology-related factors. The influence of the client-clinician interaction in the decision to purchase hearing aids has not been explored in any depth. Importance ratings of a sample of adults having a recent hearing aid recommendation (clients) and hearing healthcare professionals (clinicians) from across Canada were compared on factors in client-clinician interactions that influence hearing aid purchase decisions. A cross-sectional approach was used to obtain online and paper-based concept ratings. Participants were 43 adults (age range, 45-85 yr) who had received a first hearing aid recommendation in the 3 mo before participation. A total of 54 audiologists and 20 hearing instrument practitioners from a variety of clinical settings who prescribed or dispensed hearing aids completed the concept-rating task. The task consisted of 122 items that had been generated via concept mapping in a previous study and which resulted in the identification of eight concepts that may influence hearing aid purchase decisions. Participants rated "the importance of each of the statements in a person's decision to purchase a hearing aid" on a 5-point Likert scale, from 1 = minimally important to 5 = extremely important. For the initial data analysis, the ratings for each of the items included in each concept were averaged for each participant to provide an estimate of the overall importance rating of each concept. Multivariate analysis of variance was used to compare the mean importance ratings of the clients to the clinicians. Ratings of individual statements were also compared in order to investigate the directionality of the importance ratings within concepts. There was a significant difference in the mean ratings for clients and clinicians for the concepts understanding and meeting client needs, conveying device information by clinician, supporting choices and shared decision making, and factors in client readiness. Three concepts-understanding and meeting client needs, conveying device information by clinician, and supporting choices and shared decision making-were rated as more important by clients than by clinicians. One concept (ie, factors in client readiness) was rated as more important by clinicians than by clients. The concepts rated as most important by clients and clinicians are consistent with components of several existing models of client-centered and patient-centered care. These concepts reflect the clients' perception of the importance of their involvement in the decision-making process. A preliminary model of client-centered care within the hearing aid uptake process and implications for clinical audiology are described.

補聴器購入に至らなかった要因の検討

補聴器購入に至らなかった要因の検討

From My Perspective: Thriving in the New Audiology Frontier

From My Perspective: Thriving in the New Audiology Frontier

Use of Audiometric Variables to Differentiate Groups of Adults Based on Hearing Aid Ownership and Use

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between multiple audiometric variables and hearing aid ownership and use for first-time hearing aid candidates. In this study, use was defined as a participant report of hearing aid use 1 year following the initial evaluation. Method: Charts were reviewed and data were collected from the initial hearing evaluations of 144 adults with sensorineural hearing loss who presented for services and were candidates for amplification. The following audiomet- ric data were gathered from each participant: (a) pure-tone air conduction thresholds, (b) speech recognition thresholds (SRTs), (c) word recognition scores (WRSs), and (d) sig- nal-to-noise ratio (SNR) loss. In addition, each audiogram was classified as falling within or outside an area of the audiogram as described by Erber (2002, 2003). Participants were divided into 3 groups: (a) those who purchased hear- ing aids and reported wearing them 1 year following their initial evaluation (n = 51), (b) those who purchased hearing aids and rejected them during the first year following their initial evaluation (n = 48), and (c) those who received a recommendation for hearing aids but did not purchase any (n = 45). T

Audiology Groups Alert Members to Service Delivery Changes

You have accessThe ASHA LeaderASHA News1 Oct 2012Audiology Groups Alert Members to Service Delivery Changes Ingrida Lusis Ingrida Lusis Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.AN2.17122012.7 SectionsAbout ToolsAdd to favorites ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In Audiologists need to prepare for changes in audiology service delivery models that may affect the way they operate their practices, according to the three national organizations representing audiologists. That’s the message conveyed in an August letter [PDF]—signed by the leaders of ASHA, the American Academy of Audiology, and the Academy of Doctors of Audiology—sent to audiology members of all three organizations. The letter urges audiologists to review their current delivery systems as consumer-driven health care takes center stage in recent federal health care reform efforts. The organizations developed the joint letter in response to the growing number of consumers who purchase hearing aids online or from their health insurance companies. The letter provides a list of questions audiologists can use to assess their current practice models: What role does the sale of hearing aids play in your practice model? Do you have options in place to accommodate consumers who arrive at your practice with a hearing aid purchased elsewhere? Are the costs associated with the care you provide transparent to the patient? If appropriate, do you itemize the cost of your services? When discussing amplification and other treatment, do you offer patients options? Do you engage family and others to support the patient with hearing loss? Do you charge your patients appropriately for the products and services that you provide? Are you familiar with policies of competitive entities in your immediate locale? Are your services clearly defined and valued in your contracts with payer groups? Do you provide treatment for hearing loss that reflects the full scope of practice for audiology? Do you provide information on hearing assistive technology, listening training, and counseling—all of which could expand and enhance the service delivery model for your patients? How do you plan to engage consumers to facilitate and enhance access to your services? Do you use or have you considered employing audiology assistants to provide appropriate care under your supervision, thereby enabling you to expand professional services for your patients? Are you aware of your professional code of ethics, state licensure rules, and legal and regulatory guidelines that affect your specific practice setting (e.g., anti-trust policy, coding and billing practices)? Do you employ established best practices (verification, counseling, etc.) to ensure and improve patient outcomes? Do you measure patient satisfaction? The letter also provides a list of resources to help clinicians navigate changes. The Hearing Loss Association of America (HLAA), the nation’s leading organization representing people with hearing loss, issued a press release praising the three organizations for supporting consumer needs and setting a path for audiologists to evaluate how their practices will respond to and operate in a new hearing health care delivery system. Brenda Battat, HLAA executive director, called the letter a “watershed event for consumers” that validates HLAA’s advocacy for accessible and affordable hearing health care. For more information about changes in hearing health care service delivery, contact Pam Mason, MEd, CCC-A, director of audiology professional practices, at [email protected]. Author Notes Ingrida Lusis, director of federal and political advocacy, can be reached at [email protected]. Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Additional Resources FiguresSourcesRelatedDetails Volume 17Issue 12October 2012 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in print: Oct 1, 2012 Metrics Current downloads: 44 Topicsasha-topicsleader_do_tagasha-article-typesleader-topicsCopyright & Permissions© 2012 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationLoading ...

Delaware Approves Hearing Aid Benefit

Delaware Approves Hearing Aid Benefit