The Mirror has reported a worrying development in Devon, as cuts to NHS services mean that Deaf people will only be offered one hearing aid from now on.
Extract:
Patients who are deaf will only be offered one hearing aid instead of two.
The dramatic decision comes as part of a desperate bid to save cash, following the Government’s drive to slash £20billion in health costs by 2015.
NHS patients in Devon who are deaf or suffer from hearing loss will only be allowed one hearing aid instead of two because the local NHS group has decided second hearing aids are not cost effective enough.
Dr Tim Burke, chair of Northern, Eastern and Western Devon Clinical Commissioning Group, said “second hearing aids show far lesser cost effectiveness than the first.
The CCG said those who already had two hearing aids would not be asked for them back. Only people applying for hearing aids from 4 December will be restricted to one.
The CCG also said the restriction would not apply to those who are under 18, blind or autistic.
Read the full article here: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/more-nhs-cuts-means-deaf-4743680
Enjoying our eggs? Support The Limping Chicken:
The Limping Chicken is the world's most popular Deaf blog, and is edited by Deaf journalist, screenwriter and director Charlie Swinbourne.
Our posts represent the opinions of blog authors, they do not represent the site's views or those of the site's editor. Posting a blog does not imply agreement with a blog's content. Read our disclaimer here and read our privacy policy here.
Find out how to write for us by clicking here, and how to follow us by clicking here.
The site exists thanks to our supporters. Check them out below:
- BSL Zone: TV programmes in BSL for the Deaf community
- Deaf Umbrella: sign language interpreting - find out about listening fatigue.
- Bellman & Symfon: home alerting solutions, including the mobile phone transceiver!
- SignVideo: Instant BSL video interpreting online
- SignHealth: check out the BSL health library
- 999 BSL: call 999 in an emergency, in BSL
- Appa: Looking for RSLIs, TSLIs and CSWs, apply here!
- Mary Hare School: Education for deaf children and young people
- Signly: Adding BSL to websites
- Signworld: Learn BSL online!
- DCAL: world-class research into deafness, cognition and language
- Action Deafness: “A Deaf-Led Charity” – interpreting & community support services
- Sign Solutions: Instant access to Interpreters, training and BSL translation nationwide
- InterpretersLive: On demand BSL video interpretation
- Lipspeaker UK: specialist lipspeaking support
- Performance Interpreting: BSL interpreting at concerts
- National Deaf Children's Society: The leading charity for deaf children
cats
December 5, 2014
Ludicrous. The effectiveness of one hearing aid compared to none is obviously going to be huge. The effectiveness of having two hearing ears is less huge but still massive.
John Walker
December 5, 2014
If this is an appropriate policy, then it must also be true that someone should be given one crutch, a one wheeled wheelchair, a monocle, … Completely farcical. And how is ‘cost effectiveness’ evaluated? I would love to know the parameters because it is my guess that very little of those measurements are related to deaf life.
Robert Mandara
December 5, 2014
Completely ridiculous. Does this mean that people with single-sided deafness won’t qualify for a hearing aid at all? After all, they have one good ear and, if the article is to be believed, there’s no benefit to be had by fixing the deaf ear.
I sincerely hope that anyone who considers this to be a sensible policy will succumb to the joys of bilateral profound deafness sooner rather than later.
pennybsl
December 5, 2014
Gobsmacked. Astonished. Stunned. Outraged. John Walker’s comment: exactly my line of thinking. Society would gasp at seeing wheelchair users dragging or in circles with one wheel, blind people crouching down with half a stick, amputees constantly falling down with one crutch……
People who could, and need, to use both ears could testify the greater benefits long-term. Forcing dual hearing-aid wearers to use one hearing aid will suffer increased disorientation, tinnitus, one-sided echoing and many other consequences which would not have happened if the person is allowed to continue with two aids.
Decision-makers of this absolutely crazily ludicrous (akin to Monty Python black humour) idea need to have their own hearing tested and tried – that each ear receives sound differently – field of sound, tone and pitch.
The cost ‘saved’ is a mere pin-drop in an ocean of cochlear implant operations & processes.
When THEY – those people who thought up of chopping down 50% of deaf people’s dual hearing support – lose their OWN hearing one day they will realise, too little, too late, the implications of thoughtless and senseless decisions.
sharrison64
December 5, 2014
I hope all parents down in Devon now realise that after their D/deaf child’s 18th birthday he/she will no longer be able to get two hearing aids replaced next time they visit the hospital.
People with significant bi-lateral Deafness should be supplied with two hearing aids if they believe that it helps them.
By 2031, Deafness is expected to be in the top ten disease burdens, above cataracts and diabetes. This decision by the CCG has contributed to bringing this problem forward.
There is an impending public health crisis on the way, because not only does deafness inflict a high personal social cost (now exacerbated by people having to pay for the second hearing aid that they need), it can also be expensive to treat and will drain economies if we don’t allow people with bi-lateral deafness to continue wearing two hearing aids.
Untreated hearing loss places individuals at significant risk of developing depression, anxiety, frustration, social isolation and fatigue.
Stuart Harrison M.Ed.
Deafnotdaft
December 5, 2014
Quite apart from any question about right and wrong, I think this would be a false economy.
The major cost of providing hearing aids is surely the cost of the Audiology service that provides them, not the aids themselves. Since providing only one aid instead of two is not an effective solution for deaf folk, Audiology will be swamped with deaf people coming back to them complaining that they still can’t hear properly. The result? Far more work for Audiology, and therefore far more cost.
Do the maths, someone.
Sensorineural Blues
December 6, 2014
Easily the most common type of deafness is age-related. With age-related deafness it’s been shown that the hearing in an ear supported by a hearing aid deteriorates less quickly than the hearing in an ear without a hearing aid, If Audiology provides only one aid to a person with age-related deafness affecting both ears (which is the usual situation), then they are not just failing to treat the other ear but consciously damaging it.
cats
December 7, 2014
You’re right, Deafnotdaft, the NHS gets a really good deal on hearing aids due to bulk purchasing.
Cathy
December 7, 2014
Good heavens! This has to be a joke surely?!? Who are these people who decide these things? They are obviously not deaf otherwise they would not make such stupid crass decisions!
It is clear these people have no understanding of deafness because if they did they would never have reached such a decision.
Firstly, it is not always possible to cope with 1 hearing aid due to the eustachian tube and the need for balance. When out of balance tinnitus soars and once this is chronic its for life. I can tell you now that tinnitus is absolutely horrendous and there is no cure in sight! When unbalanced one can feel nauseous and dizzy, life with 1 hearing aid in this state would be truly unpalatable!
Thus people who need aswell as require 2 aids in order to reach equilibrium would not be able to do so and therefore would have no aid.
In any case if hearing aids are being “cut down” what about cochlear implants???? They cost 10 times more!!! So reducing people to 1 hearing aid is hardly cost effective in the face of CI’s!!
Please lets have a modicum of common sense and allow people 2 hearing aids if this is required. If Devon really want to make cuts they can cut CI operations for starters. They should never meddle with things they obviously do not understand.
Tim
December 8, 2014
Let’s have a look at what this government *can* afford:
1. It can afford tax cuts for millionaires.
2. It can afford 11% pay rises for the very MPs who lecture us on how “the deficit is unsustainable.”
3. It can afford Trident (which will probably never be used, but even if it is, will make life unbearable anyway.)
4. It can afford a new high speed train link.
5. It can afford the multi-billion pound “work programme,” which is proving to be doing worse than doing nothing.
I doubt that austerity is about saving money, it seems to be more about making sure that the money is spent on the “right” people.
Deafnotdaft
December 9, 2014
Hi Tim. All your five points are very true and well-made. But I think the main issue here is about how the NHS spends its money, not about how the government spends theirs.
The NHS needs to find ways to cut their costs consistently with maintaining levels of service. They could start by doing things like reducing (a) the huge number of management staff and (b) the obscenely high pay-offs they give their staff when they package them off.
More importantly, they need to finds ways of working more efficiently. In Audiology, for example, they could outsource all the relatively trivial stuff like changing hearing aid tubes and explaining how to operate new hearing aids. At my Audiology, I have to make an appointment with a highly qualified and relatively highly paid audiologist to get things like this done.
I’d wager there are lots of opportunities to cut costs in Devon without reducing services. Perhaps the trouble is that the NHS staff would then have to suffer the pain rather than the patients.
reena
February 6, 2015
Hearing aids are very good equipment for which have hearing problem. and today this equipments are easily available.