[ad_1]
This is an opinion material. The views presented here are specific to the author.
The choices for primary auditory reeducation and the free choice of hearing aids are discussed and system design is subject to political interest in some regions and county councils. That's why I've been given the mission of the Hearing Agencies to propose changes in the systems to improve the hearing care of patients.
Hearing-impaired persons need a professional assessment, a screening of individual needs and recurrent support. Hearing aids enable a more normal life with a better quality of life and increased participation in the digital society. But a lot of time before they're looking for help for their hearing problems, complicating everyday life. Untreated hearing loss can lead to social isolation, depression and an increased risk of dementia prematurely. First of all, let me know that there are legitimate critics about today's hearing care, for example hearing care is so different in different parts of the country, but they are not related to the choice of care. or free choice. The differences are also found in many other areas of health care. This is due, among other things, to the health organization of the country, the 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 to back up. One can think that the choice of the choice and the free choice are relatively new phenomena. Coping with criticism by removing them, it is taking several steps back in development. If removed, there is a high risk of temporary chaos, lower availability and reduced freedom of choice. The benefits of choosing care and free choice are clear to patients. The choice of care strongly contributes to the quick return of patients to a reception. It helps patients meet with professional and dedicated caregivers. This helps patients get good service and treatment.
The free choice of hearing allows the patient to choose from the wide range of hearing aids that best meet the needs of the individual. It provides more utility and a better function, according to the tracking in the quality register.
My conclusion is that the systems must be developed, not settled, and my suggestions are:
• Design the compensation model and the level of reimbursement compensation to cover the cost
• Develop the rehabilitation plans to become the patient's quality of life
• Define the conditions for participation in the National Quality Register.
• Open-Range Reports and Prices of Hearing Aids in Free Selection
• Report the patient's perceived benefit of the hearing aid used.
Back to Debatt
[ad_2]
Source link
