This probably won't help this individual but in the future the SLP might put in the report something like... you "ruled out" devices such as the Lightwriter and DynaWrite because they are standard keyboard style of SGDs and due to the inability of the PALS to use their hands at this time, it is an inappropriate consideration. (even though it can be used for scanning, they are most often converted to scan after an individual loses that preferred, and at one time most efficient method of access ... I know you know this). Then contrast the DynaVox Vmax to the ERICA, at which point the Dynavox Vmax would be seen as the most cost effective option.

All the Best-

Deb

On Apr 3, 2008, at 9:42 PM, Alisa Brownlee wrote:

Question for the group:

We recently had an AAC device denied from Blue Cross for one of our PALS. We are appealing this decision and I was hoping someone in the group has some strong wording that has proven successful with insurance appeals that we could incorporate into the appeal letter.

This patient is a quad with decent head control. We documented that we tried the ERICA system which was not successful, (patient wears special bifocals and the camera could not capture her eye movements and she could not see the screen without glasses) the Dynawrite and scanning Lightwriter with switch scanning which was slow and fatiguing, and the DV5 with headmouse which was quicker in terms of access versus the above devices. We documented "that the Dynavox DV5 Max offered all the features she wanted and Mrs. XX reported it was more comfortable and less fatiguing to use the head mouse as opposed to using a switch. Using the Dynavox V Max with a head mouse system, Mrs. XX was able to fully utilize all the features on the device. Mrs. XX was very successful using the headmouse system with on-screen keyboard display and was able to cover the entire quadrant of the screen. Upon successful set up of the head mouse and communication device, Mrs. XX was able to independently utilize the Dynavox V Max system to communicate her needs."

Blue Cross denied this device stating a "less deluxe speech generating device should be sufficient to meet this member's basic communication needs". (personal note here--my husband says I should tell Blue Cross that smoke signals are no longer recognized as a sufficient communication system but I don't think they would get the joke)

So, I am asking the group for any good wording because I think we did a decent job documenting that this was the best device for her communication needs. Any help will be appreciated. You can email the group or me directly at xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

Many thanks,

Alisa

Alisa Brownlee, ATP
Assistive Technology Specialist
ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease) Association, Greater Philadelphia Chapter

Assistive Technology Consultant, ALS Association, National Office

Direct Phone Number: 215-631-1877

You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.

All the Best-

Deb

Deb Bassett

Central NJ Consultant for DynaVox Technologies and Mayer-Johnson too!

732-438-9787 Home/ Office

609-915-1234 Cell - preferred

Effective January 1, 2008

I serve the following counties: Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean, Somerset, and Union

North Jersey: Alba Spreen xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 908-342-4830

South Jersey: Libby Henry xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 609-968-0965

Visit the NEW DynaVox website at www.DynaVoxTech.com for product and pricing information, 24/7 online technical support, funding assistance, report writing help, rental information, local & online workshops schedules... and more.

Did you know that we offer many trainings online?? They're really good and free!!!

Follow these links: DynaVox Mayer-Johnson

1-800-344-1778 customer support, rental information, funding information.

1-888-697-7332 product and pricing information

Want to know more about Assistive Technology in NJ?

Go to NJCART.org Join us!