The reality of hearing loss in the U.S. and the AB2072 bill

In one video skit as part of the continuing anti-AB2072 bill protest a voice interpreter can be heard saying the baby has a "moderate to profound hearing loss" but the caption says "moderate to severe hearing loss" around the 1:11 time stamp mark. Which is it? Moderate, severe or profound hearing loss for this baby (doll)? The skit then proceeded to give the baby (doll) a "cochlear implant" as a solution for the baby's hearing loss though we don't know if the baby has, figuratively speaking, a moderate, severe or profound hearing loss. Pretty desperate into trying to lump moderate to profound hearing loss category into this cochlear implant issue when it's the 90 db or more is the required hearing loss amount (profound hearing loss) for a cochlear implant eligibility. Had they said profound hearing loss then I'd be more forgiving in this video but moderate to profound? What a confused bunch we have there in the attempt to disinform the population about hearing loss and cochlear implant.

The reality is that cochlear implant only goes to those children with 90 dB hearing loss or greater (along with the requ...isite word discrimination scores) according to some insurance agencies.

According to the CDC moderate hearing loss typically range from 41 to 70 dB while severe hearing loss range from 71 to 90 dB. And profound hearing loss is greater than 90 dB. So, no, babies with moderate or even profound hearing loss cannot qualify for a cochlear implant while most babies with profound hearing loss cannot qualify for cochlear implants unless they at have at least 90 dB average hearing loss.

Approximately 70% of people with hearing loss are those with mild to severe hearing loss while the remaining 30% are those with profound hearing loss based on a 2006 survey using 43 states and 3 U.S territories. Meaning that perhaps from this study we can infer that more babies are born with mild to moderate hearing loss than those born with severe to profound but more studies are needed to confirm that.

Some 73% of the people identified had hearing loss in both ears while 22% of the people identified had hearing loss 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 this study can be seen as a representative statistics for the rest of the U.S. population of people with hearing loss. We also can see that not all babies are born with hearing loss are in both ears. You have to take into account those born a hearing loss in only one ear, too.

The AB2072 bill is about presenting a pamphlet to parents whose baby was identified with a hearing loss whether it's in one ear or two ears and help them on their path to make an informed decision on what to do next. This bill is not about forcing parents into getting a cochlear implant or other options of modes of communications and ignoring ASL. Even though the bill does present 5 potential opportunities to put ASL in the spotlight.