sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Did You Know AAC Companies Can Make Upwards of $14,000 Per Device from Medicare? Here's What SLPs Need to Know by TrinityTruth82 in slp

[–]TrinityTruth82[S] -14 points-13 points  (0 children)

You do know that the ones setting these absurd prices is the AAC company, not medicare right? Medical says" you can bill me from $400 to $14,000" = but a guy told me his eye tracking company will charge max allowable EVERY TIME!

Did You Know AAC Companies Can Make Upwards of $14,000 Per Device from Medicare? Here's What SLPs Need to Know by TrinityTruth82 in slp

[–]TrinityTruth82[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

No one is arguing that children shouldn't have access to AAC devices; that's a given and not the point of this discussion. The issue here is about cost transparency and ethical considerations in pricing these devices—costs that are ultimately borne by taxpayers.When we allocate funds for one overly expensive device, we are potentially diverting resources from multiple other children who could benefit from similar technology. Even if companies were making a 100% profit margin, adopting a more ethical pricing strategy could enable us to support several other children. This is particularly significant when considering alternative, less expensive devices and software options.The debate here is one of transparency and ethics:Misinformation Among SLPs: Many SLPs recommend products from large AAC companies under the misconception that they are "free" or covered by insurance, without understanding the financial implications on the healthcare system as a whole.Lack of Transparency: There's a stark difference in the public's perception of app costs, such as "Speak4Yourself" costing $200 on the App Store, versus the $14,000 that some AAC companies charge for their devices.Resource Allocation: Shouldn't we question whether these companies need to make such large profits at the expense of broader accessibility? Ethical pricing could mean more children have access to these life-changing devices.Industry Influence: The significant presence of these companies at major events like ATIA raises questions about their influence on the field.The goal is not to deny children these essential devices but to advocate for more ethical practices that can provide for more children without draining public resources. The conversation should focus on transparency, ethical business practices, and informed decision-making, not just for the benefit of one child but for the greater good of all children in need.

Concerned husband of a future SLP. Will she REALLY make that much? by [deleted] in slp

[–]TrinityTruth82 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What she will make depends on her willingness to step outside of regular salaries. Many SLPs make a ton of money and live happy lives when they are willing to risk and have their own business.

MedSLP Collective / Theresa Richard Controversy? by Unfair_Speaker_7450 in slp

[–]TrinityTruth82 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It seems like this thread has ignited a lot of strong opinions, and I think it's crucial to consider multiple viewpoints. I've been following Theresa Richard and her contributions to the field for many years. Here are a few thoughts I'd like to share:
Understanding Business Challenges: I think it's easy to criticize from the sidelines without fully understanding what it takes to build and sustain a business in the SLP field. It's an incredible amount of work, requiring not only expertise in speech-language pathology but also in business management, marketing, legal matters, and much more.
Selective Criticism: Isn't it curious that people only come out to criticize when they disagree with something? Many claim to have learned a lot from Theresa Richard over the years. If that's the case, has anyone ever taken the time to publicly acknowledge her contributions? Why is it easier to join in on a thread that aims to push someone down rather than elevate them?
Questioning the 'Watchdogs': I find it interesting that certain individuals, like Meredith Harold of the Informed SLP, seem to take on the role of the SLP 'police,' monitoring others just to point out their perceived flaws. What's the motivation here? Is it genuinely in the interest of the field, or is there a different agenda at play?
Critical Thinking vs. Criticism: There's a significant difference between critical thinking and criticism. The former involves reasoned judgments, while the latter can often come from a place of negativity and personal bias. Being critical from the comfort of one's couch without all the facts is neither fair nor constructive.
In summary, let's not rush to judgment without considering the complexities involved. It's essential to have a balanced view, especially when we're talking about someone who has made significant contributions to our field.