CAA Official Letter to Assembly Member Tony Mendoza
Some Deaf leaders and protesters like Ella and others incorrectly stated that the CAA's complaint was because their role would be restricted. Rather it's the opposite with the potential of going beyond the scope of their profession or a patient's needs.
An audiologist forced to review and counsel all available communication options with parents of children with varying degrees and causes of hearing loss would be tantamount to a cardiologist discussing with parents a heart transplant for a child found to have a heart murmur or an ophthalmologist counseling parents regarding the option of a seeing eye dog for their child who needs glasses.Other protesters or those who are against the bill as a whole continue to make wild claims that audiologists are there to take advantage of and make money via commissions to get kids their cochlear implants. Not only is the claim irresponsible but downright false. Audiologists diagnose more children that are hard of hearing (mild to severe hearing loss) than those with profound hearing loss. Those with profound bilateral hearing loss (90 db or greater) are more likely to be candidates for cochlear implants. Only a small percentage of these kids actually get to the point of qualifying for a cochlear implant.
From the Help Kids Hear organization's website:
- Over 1 million children in the U.S. have a hearing loss.This means that about 4.3 million babies are born each year in the United States using current birth rate. This give us an approximate figure of 26,000 babies born each year with some degree of hearing loss (mild to moderate hearing loss) while some 4,300 babies born each year with severe or profound hearing loss. Since April 2009 roughly 41,500 adults and 25,500 children have received cochlear implants in the United States ever since 1980 when the first cochlear implant was performed. From January 2008 to April 2009 there were approximately 2,228 children (from age 1 to 17 years old) implanted (25,500 - 23,272 = 2,228) with a cochlear implant.
- 5% of children 18 years and under have hearing loss.
- 1 in 22 infants born in the U.S. has some kind of hearing problem.
- 6 in every 1000 infants born in the U.S. has some degree of hearing loss.
- 1 in every 1000 infants born in the U.S. has a severe or profound hearing loss.
Children must have profound bilateral hearing loss at 90db or worse while adults require at least a 70db or worse in both ears (bilateral) as a start according to a few insurances' requirements. Not all children are born with bilateral hearing loss (both ears) but many are born with hearing loss only in one ear.
In a 2006 survey some 73% of the people were identified with hearing loss in both ears while 22% of the people identified had hearing loss only in one ear only according to a 2006 survey using 43 states and 3 U.S. territories. With a sample size of 5,127 people in this study it can be seen as a representative number for the rest of the U.S. population of people with hearing loss where approximately 73% of those with hearing loss have bilateral hearing loss while approximately 22% have unilateral hearing loss in one ear only. We can clearly see those with hearing loss can either be a bilateral or unilateral hearing loss. From that revelation you have to take into account that there are those who are born with unilateral hearing loss. Children with unilateral hearing loss cannot qualify for a cochlear implant.
All in all, the continual adding of admendments and other changes in the bill in order to placate Deaf protesters' demands have gotten to the point where their actions have helped vulgarized the bill's original intent. Even the protesters were still not satisfied. From the gist of it legislators seemed to have lost sight for the rest of the children who are mostly hard of hearing or have a hearing loss only in one ear that audiologists frequently diagnose than those who are profoundly deaf. That's what seems to be missing here.
38 comments:
What is the minimum dB loss to fail the 2nd screening?
The kids coming to the attention of the 2nd screening aren't in the slight-to-mild categories, or even mild-to-moderate range, are they?
We're generally talking about severe-to-profound losses coming to notice at this point, right?
Who at CAA did you talk to. You say they are worried about exceeding their scope of practice? Then why did they kill the "shall not inform or counsel a parent toward a particular option beyond
the scope of his or her practice" language that was in the 8/17 version and was struckthrough in the 8/20.
The now-missing 8/17 language is the language you yourself claimed they most probably objected to, and here they are saying now that they want it back?
So who did you talk to at CAA who knows so little about what they themselves had amended to mess with the bill?
- Linda
Linda, I am not at liberty to discuss who I talked with. As for "scope" read the analogy part in the letter. That's what I'm referring to.
Hearing screenings do not qualify or quantify levels of hearing loss, the only indicate those who hearing is outside of normal limits
"the continual adding of admendments and other changes in the bill in order to placate Deaf protesters' demands have gotten to the point where their actions have helped vulgarized the bill's original intent."
I have wondered about that. I actually liked the amendment as amended on August 17th better than I do with the current one.
It would seem that the opposition's continual issue with the audiologists are based on their belief that all audiologist recommend CI for every single deaf/hoh babies that show up in their office and are therefore biased. This reveals that the opposition knows little or nothing about the requirement for babies to be qualified for a CI.
Then again...as I got to thinking about all this more and read the transcript of the Senate vote (unofficial) and saw what Cedillo said:
"And usually when you can get to the point where many sides are not completely happy with the result, [then] you have the result that best serves everyone."
I can't help, but agree with Cedillo.
From the looks of it, we can expect to see more bills to refine AB2072 in the coming years.
Linda --
I truly think you're looking for a trouble. Mike is right. He is not the liberty to tell anyone who the person is.
If you get the name and announce in the website WITHOUT this person's permission, oh boy!!!!!! You're trying to destroy this person's creditability.
I wonder I am starting not to trust you, Linda.
Good work, Mike! I'm patting on your shoulder. Congratulations! I think I should give you a Cuban cigar! ;-)
Generally, professional people will resist any limitation on what they do in their specialty.
The notion of "professionalism" includes knowledge of one's limitations, willingness to refer to more expert people, and judgment of what is best for the individual. In other words, they expect to be trusted as honest, well trained and motivated toward what's best for their patient.
Here is where bias can creep in. Audiology is a discipline centered on maximizing hearing and has the ideal of restoring hearing and speech to their patient. The audiologist's approach is evaluation, adaptation, training in use of devices, sometimes speech and hearing training.
Education in language skills is usually outside the audiologist's field but is affected by the choices that the audiologist makes in the "best interests of the patient."
However, education is the Deaf child's best chance to be competitive with society in general, not his limited ability to hear. The more deaf the child is, the greater importance of education.
This is why Deaf activists want to add language that affects the audiolgist's practice.
Huh, Dianrez?
"Education in language skills is usually outside the audiologist's field but is affected by the choices that the audiologist makes in the "best interest of the patient."
What were you thinking? Would you be happy if a child's left ear has 25 db and the right ear has 108 db and then this child would be very, very, very confused dealing with the sound in the atomsphere? It's going to be out of the balance and control. It's also going to be diffucult and emotional approach. The hearing aid sometimes does not help this child. This child needs some help from Audiologist.
I agree with Candy....there will be more bills coming up that going to be refine AB 2072. If Governator signs the AB2072, the new bill will appear in few years from now.
Dianrez is a self-admitted deaf extremist who views the world only in terms of "war", "enemies", and hatred. Thusly, her views regarding deaf education are forever tainted by her extremism, which has nothing to do with children, education, or altruistic purposes.
I am in no way trying to defend the audiologist here but I just wanted to point this out. Last year, there was a bill that was passed in california, AB 1535, that was titled the "Speech Pathologists and Audiologist Licensure Act"
you can see it at this link. http://www.caaud.org/documents/2009/ab_1535_bill_20090709_amended_sen_v97.pdf
Now if you look at Section 4, 2530.2(k) “The practice of audiology” means the application of principles, methods, and procedures of measurement, testing, appraisal, prediction, consultation, counseling, and instruction related to auditory, vestibular, and related functions and the modification of communicative disorders involving speech, language, auditory behavior or other aberrant behavior resulting from auditory dysfunction; and the planning, directing, conducting, supervising, or participating in programs of identification of auditory disorders, hearing conservation, cerumen removal, aural habilitation, and rehabilitation, including, hearing aid recommendation and evaluation procedures including, but not limited to, specifying amplification requirements and evaluation of the results thereof, auditory training, speech reading, and the selling of hearing aids.
This definition actually allows them to get involved with listening and speech methods. While I do not agree with this, but could be that they will use this to say that this is in conflict or contradicting with AB2072?
Now if you look at the speech pathology definition in this same bill,
(d) The practice of speech-language pathology means all of the following:
(1) The application of principles, methods, instrumental procedures, and noninstrumental procedures for measurement, testing, screening, evaluation, identification, prediction, and counseling related to the development and disorders of speech, voice, language, or swallowing.
(2) The application of principles and methods for preventing, planning, directing, conducting, and supervising programs for habilitating, rehabilitating, ameliorating, managing, or modifying disorders of speech, voice, language, or swallowing in individuals or groups of individuals.
(3) Conducting hearing screenings.
(4) Performing suctioning in connection with the scope of practice described in paragraphs (1) and (2), after compliance with a medical facility’s training protocols on suctioning procedures.
When you read them both, you get the impression that both audiologists and speech pathologists basically can do the same thing. The speech pathologist can conduct hearing screenings while the audiologist can counsel and instruct related to the auditory, vestibular, and related functions and the modification of communicative disorders involving speech.
I don't agree with this bill whatsoever cuz it gives them both too much flexibility and allows them to go outside of what they should actually be focussed on. Its too bad that the deaf communities or the people that were opposed to AB2072 were not aware of this bill when it came out last year, ya know? I don't like this at all but it is what is written as CA law.
I am in no way trying to defend the audiologist here but I just wanted to point this out. Last year, there was a bill that was passed in california, AB 1535, that was titled the "Speech Pathologists and Audiologist Licensure Act"
I am unable to put the link here as it says it is too long to allow in this comment but you can simply google "Speech Pathologists and Audiologist Licensure Act" in California and you will find it.
Now if you look at Section 4, 2530.2(k) “The practice of audiology” means the application of principles, methods, and procedures of measurement, testing, appraisal, prediction, consultation, counseling, and instruction related to auditory, vestibular, and related functions and the modification of communicative disorders involving speech, language, auditory behavior or other aberrant behavior resulting from auditory dysfunction; and the planning, directing, conducting, supervising, or participating in programs of identification of auditory disorders, hearing conservation, cerumen removal, aural habilitation, and rehabilitation, including, hearing aid recommendation and evaluation procedures including, but not limited to, specifying amplification requirements and evaluation of the results thereof, auditory training, speech reading, and the selling of hearing aids.
This definition actually allows them to get involved with listening and speech methods. While I do not agree with this, but could be that they will use this to say that this is in conflict or contradicting with AB2072?
Now if you look at the speech pathology definition in this same bill,
(d) The practice of speech-language pathology means all of the following:
(1) The application of principles, methods, instrumental procedures, and noninstrumental procedures for measurement, testing, screening, evaluation, identification, prediction, and counseling related to the development and disorders of speech, voice, language, or swallowing.
(2) The application of principles and methods for preventing, planning, directing, conducting, and supervising programs for habilitating, rehabilitating, ameliorating, managing, or modifying disorders of speech, voice, language, or swallowing in individuals or groups of individuals.
(3) Conducting hearing screenings.
(4) Performing suctioning in connection with the scope of practice described in paragraphs (1) and (2), after compliance with a medical facility’s training protocols on suctioning procedures.
When you read them both, you get the impression that both audiologists and speech pathologists basically can do the same thing. The speech pathologist can conduct hearing screenings while the audiologist can counsel and instruct related to the auditory, vestibular, and related functions and the modification of communicative disorders involving speech.
I don't agree with this bill whatsoever cuz it gives them both too much flexibility and allows them to go outside of what they should actually be focussed on. Its too bad that the deaf communities or the people that were opposed to AB2072 were not aware of this bill when it came out last year, ya know? I don't like this at all but it is what is written as CA law.
I am in no way trying to defend the audiologist here but I just wanted to point this out. Last year, there was a bill that was passed in california, AB 1535, that was titled the "Speech Pathologists and Audiologist Licensure Act"
I am unable to put the link here as it says it is too long to allow in this comment but you can simply google "Speech Pathologists and Audiologist Licensure Act" in California and you will find it.
Now if you look at Section 4, 2530.2(k) “The practice of audiology” means the application of principles, methods, and procedures of measurement, testing, appraisal, prediction, consultation, counseling, and instruction related to auditory, vestibular, and related functions and the modification of communicative disorders involving speech, language, auditory behavior or other aberrant behavior resulting from auditory dysfunction; and the planning, directing, conducting, supervising, or participating in programs of identification of auditory disorders, hearing conservation, cerumen removal, aural habilitation, and rehabilitation, including, hearing aid recommendation and evaluation procedures including, but not limited to, specifying amplification requirements and evaluation of the results thereof, auditory training, speech reading, and the selling of hearing aids.
This definition actually allows them to get involved with listening and speech methods. While I do not agree with this, but could be that they will use this to say that this is in conflict or contradicting with AB2072?
Now if you look at the speech pathology definition in this same bill,
(d) The practice of speech-language pathology means all of the following:
(1) The application of principles, methods, instrumental procedures, and noninstrumental procedures for measurement, testing, screening, evaluation, identification, prediction, and counseling related to the development and disorders of speech, voice, language, or swallowing.
(2) The application of principles and methods for preventing, planning, directing, conducting, and supervising programs for habilitating, rehabilitating, ameliorating, managing, or modifying disorders of speech, voice, language, or swallowing in individuals or groups of individuals.
(3) Conducting hearing screenings.
(4) Performing suctioning in connection with the scope of practice described in paragraphs (1) and (2), after compliance with a medical facility’s training protocols on suctioning procedures.
When you read them both, you get the impression that both audiologists and speech pathologists basically can do the same thing. The speech pathologist can conduct hearing screenings while the audiologist can counsel and instruct related to the auditory, vestibular, and related functions and the modification of communicative disorders involving speech.
I don't agree with this bill whatsoever cuz it gives them both too much flexibility and allows them to go outside of what they should actually be focussed on. Its too bad that the deaf communities or the people that were opposed to AB2072 were not aware of this bill when it came out last year, ya know? I don't like this at all but it is what is written as CA law.
"Dianrez is a self-admitted deaf extremist who views the world only in terms of "war", "enemies", and hatred."
McConnell, in the interests of fair and balanced blogging, the above is irrational libel and has no evidence supporting it. The anonymous writer is asked to produce evidence and is confusing me with someone else.
See my blog on "hate" verbiage (http://dianrez.xanga.com/726921068/hate-crime-verbiage-can-harm-us/)
Now back to the point of this blog: anonymous, please attend to it instead of libel.
Mike's using an anonymous source at CAA is fine... But the response cannot be considered to be that of CAA itself.
At this point, I would expect that CAA would come out with FORMAL reasons as to why it now opposes AB 2072, and what we're seeing is a lot of turmoil inside the group as to just why they don't like it.
We spent a LOT of time objecting to the change away from the 8/17 "limit to scope of practice" language to what WE considered to be the more vague 8/20 language, so it is still really ODD to me that the audiologists claim not to like it either...
If Mike's secret informant actually represented CAA's position, the informant SHOULD be able to answer the simple question of why the 8/20 change occurred when neither CAA nor the OPPOSEAB2072 folks wanted it.
That's all I meant.
- Linda
Here's the link....
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1501-1550/ab_1535_bill_20091011_chaptered.html
Valhallian,
Fascinating about last year's bill!
What I'm seeing that still amazes me is the sheer amount of money directed at getting audiologists to recommend oral option schools.
Seems to me that the whole CI issue really comes down to the overly-tight coupling of CIs with exclusion of sign in subsequent education, even for those who will wind up at the state schools without language because of it (perhaps at least some of the anger from the original opponents of the bill was that they get to pick up the ball for the failures the oral option schools drop after they've had their shot educating them?)
If Mike gives his permission, I would like to post a list of the money spent partially or COMPLETELY on lobbying in favor of AB 2072 before the recent flip-flops in positions (see OPPOSEAB2072.com for the most recent reversal of position).
Thanks to Valhallian for posting more proof that something really weird is going on here, and has been for the last several years.
We should have addressed it before, but honestly, given you guys telling us the status quo was just fine, and "it changes nothing", we've had our hands full just trying to make people aware that there really was a problem THIS year.
Mike, please ask your contact at CAA... If CAA didn't want the 8/17 language changed to the 8/20 language, and WE didn't want it changed either, then just WHO pushed and won the most recent change that neither of us likes?
Rather than being seen as a "troublemaker" please see me as somebody trying to get to the bottom of a "follow the money" scandal of some kind, which I believe Valhallian can also see has somehow happening here, and Mike is genuinely trying to get to the bottom of without knowing just who he can trust.
Longer-term, I'm also gathering some other information about how at least some Audiology/SLP programs receive combined funding, including MILLIONS from the Oberkotter Foundation, which only gives to programs that commit to the "Learning to Listen and Speak" model.
The coursework in the Oberkotter-funded majors appears to be excluding the idea that it is possible that a child might not wind up with enough hearing from a CI to be able to learn to listen.
This is a dangerous assumption for an audiologist to be trained under, in my opinion, but I'm finding it to be common in EVERY audiology program out there that I have surveyed so far, so if any of you know of an audiology program that includes, say, an ASL class, for example, or encourages a practicum other than that at an oral option school, or any indication that they give fair weight to education for kids whose CIs don't actually live up to the semi-promises that seem to be being made, please let me know, so my information gathered will be as balanced as whatever the reality actually turns out to be.
I believe that what both Valhallian and I are seeing indicates something we need to work TOGETHER to investigate so we can make sure the medical profession is listening to "first do no harm" rather than "CHA-CHING!"
Thanks for any info we can prove in either direction! Let's get to the bottom of this for the good of the babies!
- Linda
Linda, the CAA response is in the letter that came directly from the CAA. The letter already explains why they changed their support for the bil. This is not an anonymous source. I simply choose not to divulge as to who I was communicating with. What I wrote was my own interpretation regarding "scope." If you have further concerns or questions please contact the CAA and not me the next time.
Dianrez..
Actually if you read what Mike wrote, carefully, you'll see that he said:
"Some Deaf leaders and protesters like Ella and others incorrectly stated that the CAA's complaint was because their role would be restricted."
The CAA is not opposing due to "restrictions" or "limitations," rather they feel, If I understand correctly that the bill does not UNDERSTAND what their obligation is in the course of their job. Mike, correct me if I'm wrong...
There are more and more babies with mild to moderate hearing loss and for many of them, the options in the pamphlet should not, per audiologist, even be recommended and some will actually be considered NOT ALLOWED or NOT APPLICABLE. In other words it would not be appropriate to share all the options with parents for a specific child based on the hearing test results.
That is my understanding of it, Mike can correct me if I'm wrong.
that letter you claim that it is from CAA, that verifies that Audiology admit they are not qualified to discuss about DEAF at all. that is their way to comparing that they cannot discuss ASL because it is not in their field hence which is the reason why as we speculate for many years, AUDIOLOGY are biased against ASL :)
AB 2072 JUST passed the Assembly concurrence with a vote of 59-1
AB 2072 passed 59 - 1
Just got off from watching Calchannel.
Assembly Floor voted for AB 2072
60 Ayes and 1 Noes
Mike,
Sorry, I made my first response when I confused over what was public and what was private in your post. (Candy, NO, you DON'T get to extend my mistake to excoriate the entire original opposition!)
I don't really care who your contact is, what I care about is how we can get kids the language they need to thrive.
Thank you for chasing this down, Mike, cuz it's one more piece of evidence into something that still doesn't make much sense except that money is influencing stuff it REALLY needs not to be influencing here...
Thanks for any and all help finding out the TRUTH!
- Linda
I understand that the 2nd screening doesn't give back a dB loss, but does anybody know about how many dB loss it typically finds? That is, they MUST have some figures about follow-up audiology that indicates whether or not the 2nd screening can even detect a mild hearing loss, or if we are only seeing at least severely deaf kids at this 2nd screening.
Mike brings up an important point, that the intervention appropriate to the 2nd screening depends on whether we even HAVE mild-to-moderate hearing losses being discovered at this time, or if these are still being discovered on entry to kindergarten as they were in the olden days.
Anybody got data about how "deaf" the 2nd screening kids tend to be?
Mike, maybe your CAA contact has this info?
BTW, I AM trying to contact CAA on my own, and the CAA's lobbyist, Barry Brokaw, who represented them in many of the hearings, but it will probably take a bit for them to respond. Will post whatever I find out.
AB 2072 passed its concurrence vote in the Assembly this morning and will soon go to the Governor.
Ann_C
Anonymous above accuses Dianrez as an extremist. Au contraire, I regard Dianre as intellectually VERY honest. You owe an apology to her.
Merci en avance.
Jean Boutcher
The one Nay vote was Buchanan, D-Alamo, who voted Aye in earlier vote.
I HAVE A NEW BLOG FROM THE CAA IN RESPONSE TO READERS COMMENTS. THE CAA SENT IN SEVERAL RESPONSES TO ME AND IS NOW AVAILABLE IN MY MOST RECENT BLOG.
Ann-
Thanks for the update...not a perfect bill but it is a very good sign as it showed that Assemblymen ignored CAA pleas...about time!!! yahooo!!! I am sure CNAIS will continue to work with them and add future amends...great sign! Thanks CAA, now you listen to our community this time!
Penny
Linda wrote: "one more piece of evidence into something that still doesn't make much sense except that money is influencing stuff it REALLY needs not to be influencing here"
Such as PurpleVRS wasting tens of thousands of federal dollars in donations to the California Assocation of the Deaf, in which the leadership actively engaged in deceptive practices, lied, and deliberately mislead the public about audiologists, deaf education, AB 2072, supporters of AB 2072, to name but a few examples?
Good point.
Comment number 32...I will be honest here...true story...went to audiology clinic last March or April in S.F. and the audiologist who tested me was disappointed that my mother is Deaf---poor mom she was 79 years old...and disappointed that I was not able to use two hearing aids since one ear picks up distorted sounds...told me about CI too. I am not lying here. Many Deaf people have bad experience with audies---for 130 years. We do not make up stories.
Penny
huh? Linda what are you talking about:
"(Candy, NO, you DON'T get to extend my mistake to excoriate the entire original opposition!)"
I wasn't even referring to you or your comment in any of my comments above.
60 to 1!
Now it goes to Arnold for his signature.
All this can be debated next year for all I care. Clearly when I speak of the "opposition" it is in reference to CA DNIA, OpposeAB2072 and DP3. The opposition including the newest member, CAA can try to work out the details next year. As far as I'm concern, the original goal to have all parents be informed of all options has been met, or will be met once Governator signs the bill. Mission accomplished, at that point.
What is important, and that is what the bill is all about, is that parents will be notified of all options and not just one or the other. This is the key and is what AB2072 is all about from the start.
Jean Boutcher: Dianrez owes the deaf community an apology for being silently complicit when OpposeAB2072 leaders described supporters of AB 2072 as "audist collaborators," among other insults.
You owe the deaf community an apology for not holding your leaders accountable for their conduct.
@ Linda: whenever I read about "D"eaf people being sooo shocked about oral programs getting sooo many millions of dollars in support from various companies and foundations, I roll my eyes in scorn. So what if they do? It's not illegal. It's not even immoral. you might not like it, but it's not a scandal, it's normal business practices. Doctors and researchers take money from pharmaceutical and medical companies and that's legal too. Companies and foundations are entitled to give their money to whoever they want. If you have a problem with foundations donating megabucks to audiology or CI programs, why not create your own fund-raising organization to support bi-bi programs? put your money where your mouth is. market your approach instead of bad-mouthing someone else's approach. Criticizing other people's causes makes you look like sour grapes.
Candy wrote: "What is important, and that is what the bill [AB 2072] is all about, is that parents will be notified of all options and not just one or the other."
Absolutely.
To Dianrez: Isn't accusing the anonymous person of libel a bit overboard? It is fine with me that you want to correct that person or to defend yourself against the exaggerated or wrong opinions. But, to accuse the person of libel is a serious matter that needs strong justifications.
It is sad to observe that the practice of vilifying a person in the deaf community is not uncommon. But, it is extremely rare to see that an act of vilification ever rises to the level of libel that can become actionable.
Lastly, on the term of "extremist", the meaning of extremist is highly subjective. The meaning varies widely from one person to next person. One person may think that I am an extremist but the next person may think that I am not an extremist. The fact that the meaning of extremist varies widely strongly suggests that the statement made by the anonymous person is merely an opinion and should not be taken too seriously.
My two cents.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
Post a Comment