6 ms·

"Hearing aids cost thousands of dollars apiece, for no other reason than there is a cartel established by government that prevents firms from selling hearing ai

"Hearing aids cost thousands of dollars apiece, for no other reason than there is a cartel established by government that prevents firms from selling hearing aids without a prescription." An example of how many (most?) monopolies are able to exist because of some sort of legal authorization or protection. Regulatory capture. There are dozens of companies who would no doubt start making inexpensive hearing aids tomorrow. Absent government regulation, they already would be.

ISL 5y ago
Queue "overpowered OTC aids destroyed my hearing" pushback...
- oliv__ 5y ago
  Queue private agency testing, evaluating and rating products on the market
  - rtkwe 5y ago
    Cue rating agencies passing anything because hearing aid companies can go to another rating company if they don't, like what happened with mortgage securities in the 00s...
    - watwut 5y ago
      Yeah, it is totally impossible to have competition on regulated market. Monopoly is only possible solution. Or something.
  - antifa 5y ago
    https://github.com/auchenberg/volkswagen https://github.com/auchenberg/volkswagen
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    Credit rating agencies and the subprime crisis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agencies_and_the_subprime_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agencies_and_the...
- giantg2 5y ago
  Is that really going to be a thing? Earbuds have been out for a long time and are easily capable of destroying hearing.
  - PoignardAzur 5y ago
    As someone with a relative who install these: yeah, it can be a thing. The gap between "too soft, doesn't help you hear" and "too loud, damages your hearing" can be narrow. Usually it's more of a problem in the other direction, with doctors playing it safe and tamping down the aid to the point of uselessness.
- im_down_w_otp 5y ago
  Total aside, in this context I think it's "cue". Like a cue card.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  Bose’s hearing aids were recently approved by the FDA, and they’re only $850. The APM Marketplace program recently covered this development and the hearing aid monopoly. The sky isn’t going to fall. https://www.npr.org/podcasts/381444600/marketplace https://www.npr.org/podcasts/381444600/marketplace https://www.bose.com/en_us/products/headphones/earbuds/soundcontrol-hearing-aids.html https://www.bose.com/en_us/products/headphones/earbuds/sound...
  - mgerdts 5y ago
    $850 each and as of a month or so ago only available in 3 states. At Costco you can get what seem to be high end hearing aids for $699 each. The current generation are rechargeable and support bluetooth. This includes the free hearing test free fitting ("real ear", which is current best practice) and followup so long as you have a membership. The key thing that is lacking is a decent app or api for me to write my own. Oh, that and phone conversations using the hearing aid's bluetooth is pretty bad.
    - toomuchtodo 5y ago
      Half seriously, Medicare should consider including a Costco membership with their coverage for the elderly.
  - the_third_wave 5y ago
    > Bose’s hearing aids were recently approved by the FDA, and they’re only $850. Only $850? That is a new use of the word only as far as I'm concerned. These things, which are in many ways similar to if not identical with bluetooth earbuds should not cost more than those - and given the fact that Apple managed to convince people that $200 is a normal price for these things that should leave more than enough margin for an unhealthy profit margin seeing as how the ones I'm using cost ⅐ of that while achieving a longer battery life.
    - toomuchtodo 5y ago
      Traditionally, the cost for hearing aids runs in the thousands of dollars. Perfect is the enemy of good enough, progress takes time.
- odiroot 5y ago
  *Cue
mschuster91 5y ago
> There are dozens of companies who would no doubt start making inexpensive hearing aids tomorrow. Absent government regulation, they already would be. And with the lack of certification requirement, someone will start cutting corners to make an extra chunk of profit. Just imagine a faulty hearing aid that fails while a person is driving, and the person causing an accident as a result. Good luck suing anyone over that one. Or people mis-tuning hearing aids leading to more damage than before. Another thing I can easily imagine is unscrupulous manufacturers using banned chemicals to manufacture the hearing aids. We have enough of this sort of shenanigans with nickel allergies in jewelry.
- alisonkisk 5y ago
  Hearing is not required to safely operate a vehicle. And why wouldn't someone be able to sue successfully?
  - tomc1985 5y ago
    What? Driving with headphones is forbidden where I am. And at minimum you need to be able to hear a carhorn.
    - jdavis703 5y ago
      And emergency sirens/bullhorns, motorcycles, train horns at unguarded railroad crossing gates, etc.
      - comex 5y ago
        Even assuming that’s true, if your hearing suddenly cuts out, and you decide to pull over in response, the chance you’ll encounter one of those objects in the few seconds it takes to pull over is rather low. For this to be a real danger, either the driver would have to not notice that they suddenly couldn’t hear anything, or the faulty hearing aid would have to pass through some sounds but not others. Both of those scenarios seem pretty unlikely. Meanwhile, from some quick googling, it seems to be common for completely deaf people to drive; apparently there are devices that can translate sirens and such into visual cues, but such devices are not universally used. To be fair, it’s a bit different if you’re not expecting it or practiced at it.
giantg2 5y ago
"monopolies are able to exist because of some sort of legal authorization or protection" The entire point of patents...
- throwaway5752 5y ago
  It was not great before patents when a big company could steal your work and put you out of business after you put in the R&D effort.
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    Now they just file the patent before inventing it, let you do the R&D for them to make it a reality, and sue your for patent infringement when you go to market.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Yeah, that used to be the point of patents. Now it seems it's mostly to squeeze as much out of people by capturing the majority of the market by not allowing similar products. I mean, we have CEOs of biomedical companies admitting that they aren't basing prices off of what it costs to research, develop, and deliver a therapy, but rather base it off of what a deaparare person is willing to pay for it. This is the very thing antitrust laws were supposed to prevent, but the patent system is used to create a similar environment.
    - throwaway5752 5y ago
      Agreed? Patents are being misused. We should fix that. Patents fixed gross injustices when they were created, and we shouldn't forget that, either. Software is probably the worst example of a field for patents and I think the case for patenting algorithms or design is dicey. But if you sink 100M into drug R&D, a novel type of medical device, or a new type of semiconductor CVD process you should have some protection against reverse engineering from competition for a period of time. Since the problem seems to come a lot, maybe the problem is the role of money in politics and we should address the root cause. Just a thought.
slg 5y ago
>An example of how many (most?) monopolies are able to exist because of some sort of legal authorization or protection. Regulatory capture. To be clear this "legal authorization or protection" is not necessarily over regulation. Depending on the market, sometimes monopolies are the result of too much government regulation and sometimes they are the result of not enough government regulation. For example, most of the big tech monopolies do not exist because of regulatory capture. They exist because the government never put in enough effort to stop the monopolies from forming.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  > For example, most of the big tech monopolies do not exist because of regulatory capture. They exist because the government never put in enough effort to stop the monopolies from forming. Is it possible they exist because the immense economies of scale and near zero marginal cost that software provides makes for a winner take all market? As a customer, why would one use the 2nd best option, when the best option is available at no extra cost or very little cost?
  - 8ytecoder 5y ago
    That assumption doesn’t go well with what we saw in the case of Instagram and then Snapchat. Both took significant share out of Facebook but Facebook was able to buy Instagram and copy Snapchat to retain its monopoly. The Instagram acquisition shouldn’t have been possible is what the parent seems to be alluding to.
    - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
      Instagram had 10mn users and a one week old Android app at the time it was acquired. Their ad system was pretty much ported from FB, one assumes, and their ads were sold by FB reps as part of a package. I honestly don't know if they would have made it independently (and we'll never know, I guess). The snapchat thing was different. Snap had a policy of focusing on iOS, while FB, IG and Whatsapp (all of which cloned their core feature) were available on Android. I personally think Snapchat shot themselves in the foot with bad product strategy. And look at TikTok. They are definitely the biggest competitor FB have ever faced, so I'd imagine that the future competitive landscape for them looks much more difficult than the past.
maxk42 5y ago
The only problem I see with allowing anyone to offer hearing aids is the hypothetical problem that a malfunctioning product may harm someone's hearing further. That's a real issue to be addressed, but generally I agree that making it easier for people to help other people is better than throwing up obstacles.
- BurningFrog 5y ago
  In the pre-regulatory system, you could sue the manufacturer in those cases. I think that was better for most cases.
- yissp 5y ago
  A huge number of everyday products have the potential to cause serious harm if they're defective, but they generally aren't regulated to the extent that hearing aids are. As a sibling comment points out, the threat of law suits keeps manufacturers in check.
- nostromo 5y ago
  Earphones can damage someone’s hearing. Should those require a prescription too?
BurningFrog 5y ago
I assume there are countries where you can already buy hearing aids without prescription?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
If it’s true that hearing aids shouldn’t need a prescription and can be made cheaply, shouldn’t it be easy for anyone who needs one to buy online from overseas? The same way you can get grey market viagra.
- notriddle 5y ago
  The problem is that you don’t want zero regulation. That’s how you get fire hazard USB chargers from no-name Amazon sellers. You want minimal safety regulations — and no more.
Johnny555 5y ago
There are dozens of companies who would no doubt start making inexpensive hearing aids tomorrow. Absent government regulation, they already would be. There are already dozens of companies making them: https://www.amazon.com/Hearing-Amplifiers/b?ie=UTF8&node=3775901 https://www.amazon.com/Hearing-Amplifiers/b?ie=UTF8&node=377...

ISL 5y ago

Queue "overpowered OTC aids destroyed my hearing" pushback...

oliv__ 5y ago
Queue private agency testing, evaluating and rating products on the market
- rtkwe 5y ago
  Cue rating agencies passing anything because hearing aid companies can go to another rating company if they don't, like what happened with mortgage securities in the 00s...
  - watwut 5y ago
    Yeah, it is totally impossible to have competition on regulated market. Monopoly is only possible solution. Or something.
- antifa 5y ago
  https://github.com/auchenberg/volkswagen https://github.com/auchenberg/volkswagen
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  Credit rating agencies and the subprime crisis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agencies_and_the_subprime_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agencies_and_the...
giantg2 5y ago
Is that really going to be a thing? Earbuds have been out for a long time and are easily capable of destroying hearing.
- PoignardAzur 5y ago
  As someone with a relative who install these: yeah, it can be a thing. The gap between "too soft, doesn't help you hear" and "too loud, damages your hearing" can be narrow. Usually it's more of a problem in the other direction, with doctors playing it safe and tamping down the aid to the point of uselessness.
im_down_w_otp 5y ago
Total aside, in this context I think it's "cue". Like a cue card.
toomuchtodo 5y ago
Bose’s hearing aids were recently approved by the FDA, and they’re only $850. The APM Marketplace program recently covered this development and the hearing aid monopoly. The sky isn’t going to fall. https://www.npr.org/podcasts/381444600/marketplace https://www.npr.org/podcasts/381444600/marketplace https://www.bose.com/en_us/products/headphones/earbuds/soundcontrol-hearing-aids.html https://www.bose.com/en_us/products/headphones/earbuds/sound...
- mgerdts 5y ago
  $850 each and as of a month or so ago only available in 3 states. At Costco you can get what seem to be high end hearing aids for $699 each. The current generation are rechargeable and support bluetooth. This includes the free hearing test free fitting ("real ear", which is current best practice) and followup so long as you have a membership. The key thing that is lacking is a decent app or api for me to write my own. Oh, that and phone conversations using the hearing aid's bluetooth is pretty bad.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    Half seriously, Medicare should consider including a Costco membership with their coverage for the elderly.
- the_third_wave 5y ago
  > Bose’s hearing aids were recently approved by the FDA, and they’re only $850. Only $850? That is a new use of the word only as far as I'm concerned. These things, which are in many ways similar to if not identical with bluetooth earbuds should not cost more than those - and given the fact that Apple managed to convince people that $200 is a normal price for these things that should leave more than enough margin for an unhealthy profit margin seeing as how the ones I'm using cost ⅐ of that while achieving a longer battery life.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    Traditionally, the cost for hearing aids runs in the thousands of dollars. Perfect is the enemy of good enough, progress takes time.
odiroot 5y ago
*Cue

mschuster91 5y ago

> There are dozens of companies who would no doubt start making inexpensive hearing aids tomorrow. Absent government regulation, they already would be. And with the lack of certification requirement, someone will start cutting corners to make an extra chunk of profit. Just imagine a faulty hearing aid that fails while a person is driving, and the person causing an accident as a result. Good luck suing anyone over that one. Or people mis-tuning hearing aids leading to more damage than before. Another thing I can easily imagine is unscrupulous manufacturers using banned chemicals to manufacture the hearing aids. We have enough of this sort of shenanigans with nickel allergies in jewelry.

alisonkisk 5y ago
Hearing is not required to safely operate a vehicle. And why wouldn't someone be able to sue successfully?
- tomc1985 5y ago
  What? Driving with headphones is forbidden where I am. And at minimum you need to be able to hear a carhorn.
  - jdavis703 5y ago
    And emergency sirens/bullhorns, motorcycles, train horns at unguarded railroad crossing gates, etc.
    - comex 5y ago
      Even assuming that’s true, if your hearing suddenly cuts out, and you decide to pull over in response, the chance you’ll encounter one of those objects in the few seconds it takes to pull over is rather low. For this to be a real danger, either the driver would have to not notice that they suddenly couldn’t hear anything, or the faulty hearing aid would have to pass through some sounds but not others. Both of those scenarios seem pretty unlikely. Meanwhile, from some quick googling, it seems to be common for completely deaf people to drive; apparently there are devices that can translate sirens and such into visual cues, but such devices are not universally used. To be fair, it’s a bit different if you’re not expecting it or practiced at it.

giantg2 5y ago

"monopolies are able to exist because of some sort of legal authorization or protection" The entire point of patents...

throwaway5752 5y ago
It was not great before patents when a big company could steal your work and put you out of business after you put in the R&D effort.
- ModernMech 5y ago
  Now they just file the patent before inventing it, let you do the R&D for them to make it a reality, and sue your for patent infringement when you go to market.
- giantg2 5y ago
  Yeah, that used to be the point of patents. Now it seems it's mostly to squeeze as much out of people by capturing the majority of the market by not allowing similar products. I mean, we have CEOs of biomedical companies admitting that they aren't basing prices off of what it costs to research, develop, and deliver a therapy, but rather base it off of what a deaparare person is willing to pay for it. This is the very thing antitrust laws were supposed to prevent, but the patent system is used to create a similar environment.
  - throwaway5752 5y ago
    Agreed? Patents are being misused. We should fix that. Patents fixed gross injustices when they were created, and we shouldn't forget that, either. Software is probably the worst example of a field for patents and I think the case for patenting algorithms or design is dicey. But if you sink 100M into drug R&D, a novel type of medical device, or a new type of semiconductor CVD process you should have some protection against reverse engineering from competition for a period of time. Since the problem seems to come a lot, maybe the problem is the role of money in politics and we should address the root cause. Just a thought.

slg 5y ago

>An example of how many (most?) monopolies are able to exist because of some sort of legal authorization or protection. Regulatory capture. To be clear this "legal authorization or protection" is not necessarily over regulation. Depending on the market, sometimes monopolies are the result of too much government regulation and sometimes they are the result of not enough government regulation. For example, most of the big tech monopolies do not exist because of regulatory capture. They exist because the government never put in enough effort to stop the monopolies from forming.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
> For example, most of the big tech monopolies do not exist because of regulatory capture. They exist because the government never put in enough effort to stop the monopolies from forming. Is it possible they exist because the immense economies of scale and near zero marginal cost that software provides makes for a winner take all market? As a customer, why would one use the 2nd best option, when the best option is available at no extra cost or very little cost?
- 8ytecoder 5y ago
  That assumption doesn’t go well with what we saw in the case of Instagram and then Snapchat. Both took significant share out of Facebook but Facebook was able to buy Instagram and copy Snapchat to retain its monopoly. The Instagram acquisition shouldn’t have been possible is what the parent seems to be alluding to.
  - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
    Instagram had 10mn users and a one week old Android app at the time it was acquired. Their ad system was pretty much ported from FB, one assumes, and their ads were sold by FB reps as part of a package. I honestly don't know if they would have made it independently (and we'll never know, I guess). The snapchat thing was different. Snap had a policy of focusing on iOS, while FB, IG and Whatsapp (all of which cloned their core feature) were available on Android. I personally think Snapchat shot themselves in the foot with bad product strategy. And look at TikTok. They are definitely the biggest competitor FB have ever faced, so I'd imagine that the future competitive landscape for them looks much more difficult than the past.

maxk42 5y ago

The only problem I see with allowing anyone to offer hearing aids is the hypothetical problem that a malfunctioning product may harm someone's hearing further. That's a real issue to be addressed, but generally I agree that making it easier for people to help other people is better than throwing up obstacles.

BurningFrog 5y ago
In the pre-regulatory system, you could sue the manufacturer in those cases. I think that was better for most cases.
yissp 5y ago
A huge number of everyday products have the potential to cause serious harm if they're defective, but they generally aren't regulated to the extent that hearing aids are. As a sibling comment points out, the threat of law suits keeps manufacturers in check.
nostromo 5y ago
Earphones can damage someone’s hearing. Should those require a prescription too?

BurningFrog 5y ago

I assume there are countries where you can already buy hearing aids without prescription?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago

If it’s true that hearing aids shouldn’t need a prescription and can be made cheaply, shouldn’t it be easy for anyone who needs one to buy online from overseas? The same way you can get grey market viagra.

notriddle 5y ago
The problem is that you don’t want zero regulation. That’s how you get fire hazard USB chargers from no-name Amazon sellers. You want minimal safety regulations — and no more.

Johnny555 5y ago

There are dozens of companies who would no doubt start making inexpensive hearing aids tomorrow. Absent government regulation, they already would be. There are already dozens of companies making them: https://www.amazon.com/Hearing-Amplifiers/b?ie=UTF8&node=3775901 https://www.amazon.com/Hearing-Amplifiers/b?ie=UTF8&node=377...