Volume 14, Number 4, December, 2006 - Noise News International

Editor’s View
Quantifying the Cost of Hearing Loss
I’m sure that every one reading this has at least
one friend, colleague or family member who
has a hearing loss. I’m also sure that for many
of these, the hearing loss either results from or
has been increased by, exposure to excessive noise at
some time during their working life. Anyone working
in the area of noise control engineering knows that
there are engineering solutions for most excess
noise situations in the workplace. But management
may decide that the engineering solution may not
be reasonable or feasible to implement. Noise
management then has to rely on the use of personal
hearing protection, which has limitations.
The decision about implementing an engineering
solution is frequently made by management and
based on the cost to the company of the work to be
done or the changes to the workplace. However the
cost to the individual and to society as a whole of
hearing loss is rarely factored into this assessment.
Two interesting reports have been produced in
Australia that cast some light on this cost. One
is a report entitled ‘Listen Hear!’ commissioned
by the Cooperative Research Centre for Cochlear
Implant and Hearing Aid Innovation (CRC HEAR)
in partnership with VicDeaf (available at www.
audiology.asn.au/pdf/ListenHearFinal.pdf).
Council on “Work-Related Noise Induced
Hearing Loss in Australia” (http://www.ascc.
gov.au/ascc/HealthSafety/EmergingIssues/
OccupationalDiseaseReports.htm). This is one of a
series of studies to assist Government to set national
action priorities to prevent occupational diseases.
The study examined the workers’ compensation
statistics for those coded with “sound and pressure”
as the stated cause. It shows that the direct cost of
those claims in 2001/02 was over 30 million AUD,
and estimates that this is only 10% of the total cost of
the loss of hearing. It is important to acknowledge
that this data is only based on those who have made
successful workers’ compensation claims and so only
represents a proportion of the overall cost to society
of noise induced hearing loss.
Undertaking such studies to quantify overall costs of
something like noise induced hearing loss is always
difficult in view of the limited data bases upon which
the conclusions must be drawn. Also there are many
factors that can alter the statistics dramatically; for
instance a small change in the criteria for assessable
claims can make a difference in the amount of claims.
However such studies clearly highlight that, even in a
country that prides itself on providing good working
environments, the cost to society of noise induced
hearing loss is a substantial amount.
Marion Burgess
Asia-Pacific Editor
The study reports that hearing loss ranks with asthma,
diabetes and musculoskeletal diseases in terms of
burden of disability, and should be considered as
a national health priority. The report also found
that 37% of this hearing loss is attributable to
excessive noise exposure (all of which it considers
preventable). Excessive noise in the workplace and
social environments is not conducive to good hearing
retention and the report recommends that approaches
to better management of noise prevention are needed.
If management were forced to factor into its
calculations the total potential cost of noise induced
hearing loss to the individual and to society it might
affect the decision about whether an engineering
approach to a noise control problem is reasonable
and feasible.
NNI
A separate study has been undertaken by the
Australian Government Safety and Compensation
2006 December www.inceusa.org • www.noisenewsinternational.net • www.i-ince.org
133