Expectations of audiology dept/ too excessive?

Yes, I will have a financial loss of 10 percent cost of the hearing aids before the trial period if I return them. This was not a surprise. It was in the contract that I signed before purchase and actual order. There was no deception whatsoever. My audiologist is trying! Again, she works with a huge urban ENT office which really is quite good. It has surgical suites and subspecialtues. I chose specifically to order at a place where the Au.D.can readily converse with the ENTs . But yes-in some ways I had thought this through a bit. I personally believe it’s wise to have a site with Ent and AuD together. The dx is not totally firmed up yet- probably intermittent eustacian tube dysfunction that seems to have occurred suddenly after my last bout of Covid. But in short, there was no deception whatsoever. I just didn’t think the fitting and programming woujd be so hard. Once we got the communication snafu( a phone issue) rectified , I’ve found the office responsive. indeed this stuff is costly.

@docspaniel said:

But certainly I expect the audiologist to be adequately compensated.

I have been seen by AuDs as part of ENT facilities. The ENT’s input, was of very minimal value. Recently, I went to one of the best ENTs in this major metro area. He insisted, that I had no situation for him to address. In the past, the ENT recommended his associate - an AuD, who then did her job. Possibly one or two sentences might have been exchanged between the two docs over my situation.

If you prefer the ENT AUD association - great. But the question of service expectation by the fitting practitioner is a very valid one, and something that strikes a nerve now, as I just last night had interaction with an AuD over this very issue!

Years ago, my client was an incredible cardiac surgeon. He loved to refer to himself as a plumber, but others spoke about him with utmost respect. He had an awful bedside manner and was impossible to get on the phone, but if you had a heart valve issue, his skills would save your life! Skills count sometimes over niceties.

But with hearing, do most AuD’s get the instruments perfect - or ideal the first session? Here, the one judging the results, lacks technical skill to evaluate it, and the one with the skills, needs the amateur opinion of the wearer - and that opinion takes time. Thus even with the very “best” hearing aid programmers, multiple fitting tweaks based on feedback would be needed. I say this because having myself gone to several pros, over multiple decades, multiple visits always were needed! Both parties should recognize the symbiotic relationship between patient and professional - and a willingness to spend time communicating should be part of the whole experience. When communication leads to frustration, that emotional pain can take it’s own toll.

It is good that OP is OK with the situation.
But the ENT and the AuD are two discreet entities.

Because the ENT gets a referral fee from the AuD some portion of the investment will not be refundable even in cases where a return is made during the trial period. The ENT just wants his commission without the onerous effort of tracking back and checking on the final status of the deal, nor does he want to wait for the trial period to end to get his rewards.

I hate to feel that my objectivity might in some small way be influenced by a non refundable 10%. But I know that human nature suggests in some cases it might. Which for me, is a valid reason to avoid situations, where less than a full refund is possible. There is one exception:

The AuD should (if this is clear up front) get paid for testing for custom molds. But they have a value, even if I return the aids, I can use the molds on other same brand models, and I can use the impressions, often stored for a year by the company, and of course I have learned about my hearing. All valuable investments, regardless of keeping, or returning the trial units.