A quick analysis on the vetoed AB2072 bill

After reading the governor's letter on why he choose to veto the AB2072 bill I noticed three things he mentioned why.

1. The formation of an advisory committee would possibly be a duplicative work of other state programs.

2. The use of advisory committee would be quite biased.

3. And lastly use of an advisory committee would represent a significant workload which will require fiscal resources that the state is already short on.

In one paragraph near the end he stated that there are other resources and efforts being done by state agencies and departments that already try and get the information out to the parents with children identified with hearing loss. In fact, the CAA pointed this out in a letter to Tony Mendoza as seen in the first page, fifth paragraph:

Additionally, existing Health and Safety Code, Article 6.5 Section 124119.5 of Chapter 3 of Part 2 of Division 106, related to newborn and infant hearing screening, already provides for the dissemination of this information to parents. The Federal government already sponsors unbiased brochures, which are updated annually, by professionals in the area of communication options for the deaf and hard of hearing. These brochures can be provided to Californians at no cost. Further, there is really no reason, in our view, for such a broad expansion of this program in these difficult times.

This letter is very similar to the governor's own responses for his reason on vetoing the bill. Despite that, with the state continuing budget cuts will likely affect state organizations that are funded and supported through state grants in order to continue with their operations. With the governor vetoing the AB2072 bill means that ASL will not be recognized as a language in the state of California. And because of that pro-ASL deaf organizations who rely on state grants to help work with children and parents with hearing loss may be at risk. Had a similar bill to that of AB2072 with the inclusion of ASL that gets signed by the governor would have undoubtedly raise in recognizing ASL as a language and thereby have a greater chance of surviving any fiscal cuts via through grants to those organizations in California.  So, who really got hurt here?

California Academy of Audiology responds to blog readers' comments on AB2072 bill controversy

An email was sent to me today from the CAA in regards to my yesterday's blog in the effort to answer many of the readers' responses. They asked me to do this and so I am putting this email response in my blog. No names will be divulged here so please DO NOT ask me for them! The CAA's responses are below and answers some of the responses/questions seen yesterday in my blog comment box.

Hi Mike,

I and my board read your blog and the comments to yesterday’s post. We would like the opportunity to respond. Please let your readers know it comes from the CAA board of directors and legislative committee..do not use my email as it is from work…

1. Anonymous asked about the decibel level of the second screening….This pamphlet is to be given out at the diagnosis of hearing loss, not the outpatient screening. Some babies who fail the outpatient screening just have fluid in their ears etc. and just need time or medical treatment to resolve. We are being asked to hand this out to ALL children who have permanent hearing loss, of any kind and any degree…so yes even parents whose child has a mild loss or unilateral loss will be required to get this pamphlet and have ALL of the options for communication reviewed with the family.

2. Linda should know that we actually did not amend the language form the 17th…We actually endorsed that language and asked the author to go back to it. We did not take it as a gag order as to discuss all forms of communication options IS in our scope of practice…we objected to the August 20th amendments that was given to the author from legislators and the opposition, NOT CAA.

3. This is not about screenings..Please read the bill..it is about children diagnosed with hearing loss, any kind, any degree.

4. We are not even going to address the cochlear implant concerns as that is NOT a communication option…it is a device that is surgically implanted and is not part of this bill and will/should not be a part of the pamphlet…

It saddens us that the DHH community has such misinformation about our profession and our training. One of the biggest problems we feel the bill does not address is our families who use total communication as their option..they were not even included in the negotiations or the panel..We believe the panel and the costs incurred but the State is not necessary as there are pamphlets out there that are non biased and include all options, including ASL and SEE sign. We also believe at this point the bill is so far from its original intent that we cannot support, nor do we think given the polarizing options on the panel that the process will be arduous.
As audiologists we are trained in spoken speech and language development as well as different sign languages, including ASL. Some audiologists’ practices are not diagnostic but actually are educational and or rehabilitative only, and work with families in the development of spoken and visual language. It is referred to as aural rehabilitation, or in the case of a child, habilitation.

Because we too felt this bill was getting into a political battle rather than about communication and educational choices we asked to be removed as the primary pamphlet distributors and asked that the educators hand out the pamphlet but we would be happy to answer questions regarding anything in the pamphlet or direct the parent to the appropriate agency or reference material. This was rejected by the author…….Hope this clears up some of the misconceptions….

Thanks for your efforts and your fair representation of the facts……We hope this answers at least some of your readers questions…Thanks for asking!

If you have questions or comments and would like to direct them at CAA use their contact page to submit your questions or comments.

Thank you!

California Academy of Audiology Official Letter to Mendoza on Opposing AB2072

Yesterday I contacted the California Academy of Audiology (CAA) using their official email address and soon was able to get a few responses from them today regarding their recent change on why they now oppose the AB2072 bill. I was given an official CAA letter that was sent to Assembly Member Tony Mendoza on August 23, 2010 explaining why they changed their support for the bill. This is letter is already public since it was given to Assembly Member Tony Mendoza. And so I am making this available to my Kokonut Pundit readers and to the public the opportunity to read this letter and to have a digital copy. To view the letter click on the link below:

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.
- 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.

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.

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.