This is an opinion material. The views presented here are the author's own.
Choices for primary hearing rehabilitation and Free choice of hearing aids are discussed and the design of the systems is subject to political interest in some regions and county councils. In view of this, I have received the hearing agencies' mission to propose changes in the systems for the purpose of improving hearing care for the patients.
People with hearing impairment need professional assessment, aids tested for individual needs and recurring support. Hearing aids allow for a more normal life with better quality of life and increased participation in digital society. But many long before they seek help for their hearing problems, which complicates daily life. An untreated hearing loss can lead to social isolation, depression and increased risk of dementia prematurely. Therefore, it is important to have good hearing care for both the individual and the community.
First of all, let me know that there is legitimate criticism of today's hearing care, for example hearing care is so different at different places in the country, but it is not related to the care choice or free choice. The differences are also found in many other areas of health care. This is due, inter alia, to the country's healthcare organization, different priorities in different parts of the country, the different economic conditions of the county council and cultural differences.
On the other hand, there are many positive things that need to be safeguarded and, above all, developed in the current system. One may think that both choice of choice and free choice are relatively new phenomena. To face the criticism by removing these is to take several steps back in development. If removed, there is a high risk of temporary chaos, poorer availability and reduced freedom of choice. The benefits of care choice and free choice are clear to the patients. The choice of care strongly contributes to the rapid return of patients to a reception. It helps the patients meet by professional and committed caregivers. This contributes to the patients getting good service and good treatment.
Free choice in hearing care allows the patient to choose from the wide range of hearing aids that best suit the individual's needs. It provides more utility and better function, according to follow-up in the quality register.
My conclusion is that the systems need to be developed, not settled, and my suggestions are:
• Design the compensation model and the level of reimbursement compensation to cover the cost
• Develop the rehab plans to become the patient's own good quality of life.
• Set requirements for participation in National Quality Registry.
• Reporting open range and prices of hearing aids in the Free Selection.
• Report the patient's perceived benefit of the hearing aid used.
Back to Debatt