(no title)
vitejose | 2 years ago
Folks with cochlear implants regularly (i.e. once a year) meet with audiologists to tweak the parameters of the device that feeds the implant, called a "processor." The tweaking process is referred to as "mapping."
The processor is a very small, delicate piece of equipment. Over time, various parts wear out and have to be replaced. Rechargeable batteries stop holding charge, microphone elements putter out from exposure to sweat and dead skin, etc. If the company no longer offers parts/service, then when something stops working, there's not much to be done.
In defense of the manufacturers: a cochlear implant and accompanying processor are very specialized pieces of electronic equipment. The hardware, algorithms, etc. are all being improved over time. So it's not totally unreasonable to try to move folks unto the newer models.
prepend|2 years ago
I think the issue is the period of support. I think these need to be designed to last 10 or even 20 years. And this needs to be clear before the surgery like informed consent.
The other issue is optionality. It’s nice that there’s a new model and that businesses want to move people on to it. It’s not nice that the old model is unnecessarily, from an ops standpoint, turned off to require patients to upgrade.
If I had to choose for my 4 year old between deafness and an implant that worked for 4 years and then cost my family 10x my annual pay every four years, although I’d be heartbroken, I’d have to choose deafness.
I also think the initial price must include the price of surgical extraction so this kid isn’t stuck with a non-functioning implant in his head for life.
For comparison, a pacemaker battery lasts 5 years and can be replaced in an outpatient clinic [0]. But pacemaker recipients typically only live 5-15 years so it’s quite different than putting this in a kid who will have it for 70-80 years.
[0] https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/treatment-tests-and-t...