Subject: Re: Affordable hearing aids extant? From: "Richard H." <auditory(at)AUGMENTICS.COM> Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 09:31:02 -0000Songbird claims their aids fit about 80% of patients - however perhaps only about 50% of these actually get on with the product in real life. So at the end of the day around 60% of patients may still need to follow the "traditional" route. Richard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvit, Peter" <PMarvit(at)SOM.UMARYLAND.EDU> To: <> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 3:33 PM Subject: Affordable hearing aids extant? > I am a bit confused by the discussion (including the article about > "Killion's fight" and Magilen's erudite paper) about "affordable hearing > aids." Introduced a few years ago, the Songbird line seems exactly what > Killion wants. These throw-away aids last about 90 days, are a > one-size-fits-all amplification, and cost about $60. The company's stated > policy is that "The US Food and Drug Administration recommends that you have > a medical evaluation prior to purchasing or using any hearing aid. Songbird > Hearing, Inc., recommends that you have your hearing checked annually." > However, these apparently do not need to be dispensed by a licensed > practitioner (though some/many audiologists do sell them). > > One of the original pitches for this product was that audiologists could > provide an low-cost "entry" to aids to clients who balk at the substantial > monetary investment in their first set of aids. This low-cost device would > presumably offer some modicum of improvement, and would potentially lead the > clients into wanting a better (full) fitting at a higher cost. The analogy > to the drugstore reading glasses was made clear; OTC quality was adequate to > start with a low entry cost, and would generate demand for better quality > leading to professional services. Indeed, Magilen's argument and experience > seems to support this marketing rationale. > > Clearly the Songbird products have many limitations, and the idea of people > "treating themselves" raises many professional's eyebrows (in hearing and > nearly all medically-related fields). However, it still seems to me that at > least one company has fulfilled Killion's desire, while at least nominally > following some of Magilen's suggestions for OTC informational packets. I am > confused why Killion and his company cannot follow suit within the existing > set of regulations. > > For the record, I have no affiliation with any of the companies or > participants. I admit to being slightly more sympathetic toward Magilen's > desire for tighter regulation, though I think offering a low-cost entry > device makes a great deal of sense. > > Cheers, > Peter > > : Peter Marvit, PhD <pmarvit(at)som.umaryland.edu> : > : Dept. Anatomy and Neurobiology University of Maryland Medical School: > : 685 W. Baltimore Street, HSF 222 Baltimore, MD 21201 : > : phone 410-706-1272 fax 410-706-2512 : --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.631 / Virus Database: 404 - Release Date: 17/03/04