Slashdot Mirror
Insurance Won't Cover Smartphones, When Pricey Alternatives Exist
consonant writes "The NY Times has an article on insurers refusing to cover cheaper devices such as iPhones and netbooks which may be used by the speech-impaired, and instead requires them to acquire devices that cost from 10 to 20 times as much. The reason? 'Insurance is supposed to cover medical devices, and smartphones or PCs can be used for nonmedical purposes, like playing video games or Web browsing.' From the article: 'For the millions of Americans with A.L.S., Down syndrome, autism, strokes and other speech-impairing conditions, the insurance industry's aversion to covering mainstream devices adds to the challenges they face. Advocates say using an everyday device to communicate can ease the stigma and fear of making the adjustment. At the same time, current policies mean that the government and private insurers may be spending unnecessary dollars on specialty machines.'"
It'll be amazing how many people suddenly come down with "disabilities" once insurance companies start paying for fancy PDAs and SmartPhones...
Also, once a PDA or SmartPhone is declared a "medical device," it will be subject to the same approvals and liabilities as medical devices, and will therefore cost 10 to 20 times as much as they do today...
... is there anything stupid, evil or simply wrong that they will not do?
Is anyone really suprised by this move?
Insurance isn't about helping people. It's about making money. And such devices are cheaply made and prone to problems and breaking.
Just good business not to cover them.
What TFS leaves out is that the reason "medical devices" cost so much is FDA regulations and the higher standards to which they are held. There is no possible way an iPhone could be certified as a "medical device". If Apple were to apply for certification, they would need to make a lot of changes, such as...wait for it...eliminating the ability to run 3rd party code.
Yes, insurance companies can be stupid when applying rules against paying for certain devises or "experimental" procedures. But ask the women whose lives were cut short by Congress forcing them to cover bone marrow transplants for breast cancer.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
It reminds me of transit benefits, and how you're only allowed to use them for getting to and from work - God forbid that we take public transit for personal trips - it would be a tragedy... also, it reminds me how the Aptera is ineligible for auto-industry loans because it only has three wheels and the law says an auto has four wheels.... at least Congress is thinking about changing that one (well, at the "this is eligible for loans" level, not the "cars have four wheels" level. . .)
-- still wondering why my health insurance can't be more like my auto insurance, where I get to pick someone who has their act together...
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
as such why do people think health insurance is prohibitively expensive when bought outside an employer, granted its not cheap through an employer either.
Government regulations, read mandates.
Its not legal to buy health insurance across state lines, you can't even take individual health policies across most lines, all unless your covered by your employer. Your employer gets a tax deduction for your insurance that you cannot get if you buy your own. when you go to buy it you get soaked because each state piles on its mandated coverage to the already onerous federal mandates.
From mental health to smoking cessation. From pregnancy to implants. You will end up paying for coverage you will not use, in many cases cannot use, all because of some petty politicians whim. That is why we have 1000 page health bills, not because they are looking out for us, they are deciding what is and what isn't.
So yeah, I can totally see one device used in preference to another, the government says "this is what we will pay for and this list shows the extent of what qualifies"
How in the hell do you think the hovaround business stays in business. Because of the stroke of a pen makes anyone with a job buy them for people who may not even want them.
It will get vastly worse when the government takes total control. Every bit player will get their funding for their "medical" devices and the only thing not getting real money is patient care.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
They're not talking about that sort of insurance (which you can already get). The article is from the USA, where "insurer" means medical insurance.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
Customers: I've paid my insurance premiums all my life. Now that I've had this terrible accident I need you to cover some modest expenses required for me to maintain the semblence of the life I once had.
Insurers: We thank you for your custom. Your call is important to us. However, you fail to understand even the most basic aspects of our business model. We're here to fuck you, not help you. Coverage denied. Thank you for playing.
(Applicable to most forms of health-related insurance it seems)
In the context of things like this, it amazes me (as an American, no less) that the US still finds itself embroiled in the health-care debate the rest of the industrialized world successfully resolved more than 60 years ago (in some places, as long as 80-90 years ago). Even with neanderthals like the Republicans around, you'd have thought the moderate and progressive populations of the country would have dragged that country out of the stone age by now ... but I digress.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Care to point out, which regulation or act should be held reponsible for these decisions? Red tape is not a unique feature of government.
The ONLY way that an insurance company should be able to insure a phone is if the phone has everything stripped of it except for the ability to dial 911 and use the medical software. Why the hell is anyone assuming that slapping an iBandaid program on something means that if your dumb ass drops the iPhone in the toilet someone else should pay to replace it?
If there ever was a good excuse for crippled software then this might be it. Allow the application to lock out all the other functions of the iphone the insurance companies fear. That way you get the cost savings of a commondity device as the platform, but avoid the temptation of people to try to get phony perscriptions. I sort of doubt this temptation logic but the insurance companies probably know better than I do about how that goes. There are tonnes of shady companies pushing home health devices that can be justified under medicare but don't really work or soon break (e.g. scooters whose batteries quickly die). They can just imagine how an easy to sell iphone would become.
Moreover you can imagine that while this test to speech is a compelling use case, there are tonnes of other marginal justifications. for example, a timer application might be sold as a reminder for diabetics to check their glucose. A web based local pollen count application for asthmatics. all of these justifying that the insurance companies buy someone an iphone.
(by the way getting diagnosed as an asthmatic is apparently easy since all the pro bike riders have prescriptions for inhalers for brochial passage enlargers)
making the app cripple the device would sort of fix the dillema but still allow genuine need cases to get what they need.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Citation needed. Please indicate the title and section of the US Code that levies a fine on insurance companies for providing coverage to buy an iPhone or other smartphone for a hearing-disabled customer.
Not sure why this was modded flamebait, other than it probably touched a nerve.
Sometimes something inflammatory makes a good point, and one worthy of consideration. A lot of the rest of the "civilized" world DOES think the American health care system is abominable, due to the way that it accumulates cash at the top while failing to treat the poor.
But I know that opinions that offend blind patriotism are often disregarded, so I'm not really surprised by the moderation. I just wish people could react a little less instinctively when their beliefs are challenged...
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
It's easy to hold bullshit opinions and remain ignorant when you hold the belief that if others don't do all the research for you then your opinion can't possibly be wrong, isn't it?
It's easy to claim that the government imposes some maximum limit of care by law and if anyone dares to provide more value then the FBI will come and arrest everyone.
Next up, OP will be claiming the EPA demands that companies pour a liter of benzene into the water supply every year.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
I never said that the government does not regulate this. I said that you are providing a positive statement without any proof that it is correct other than by extrapolation from inhalant regulations. I cannot cite to a US Code section that doesn't levy a fine on insurers for covering smartphones (well, I can, but that wouldn't prove the matter), whereas, if your statement is accurate, you can point to the section that says so. Your statement is interesting - sufficiently interesting that you would be well-served by proving that it's accurate.
And why does she need the insurance to pay for it? Because that's they're job.
Since when is it medical insurance's job to pay for someone's iPhone? Sorry, they are not medically necessary. Health insurance is supposed to pay for health problems that come up unexpectedly... but it quickly doesn't work if everyone is expected to get back more than they pay in.
It's also easy to provide bullshit remarks to try to avoid answering a legitimate question.
It's a legit request- either answer the poster or spare us.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
But does it make sense to pay for a device 10-20 times more expensive that is also more cumbersome and has less capabilities? Look at the big picture. Is it so terrible that a device might have a potential non-medical use?
So what's up with the modding for this thread. Someone makes an assertion about US law and when people post asking for a citation they are modded down as offtopic or flamebait? Are there astroturfers from political lobbies or healthcare companies active here or is it just a bunch of opinionated people who are trying to abuse the mod system to shout down people who disagree with their party? I find the modding here as interesting as the article.
[citation needed]
"Medical insurance" in the United States isn't really insurance so much as it is a third-party payer for the vast majority of your medical bills.
Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
And why does she need the insurance to pay for it? Because that's they're job.
Since when is it medical insurance's job to pay for someone's iPhone? Sorry, they are not medically necessary. Health insurance is supposed to pay for health problems that come up unexpectedly... but it quickly doesn't work if everyone is expected to get back more than they pay in.
The whole point of the article is to state that insurance currently pays for items that cost up to ten times as much as an iPhone. By replacing the more expensive item with an iPhone multiple goals are achieved. The cost is lower. The person with the disability can now communicate in a less conspicuous way. Everybody is happy, except for the people who don't understand how having a debilitating disease could be made worse by having an awkward and somewhat off putting speech device.
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
Here's another misguided incentive -- drug coverage. I had a vitrectomy last year (I've been asked to warn people that the link supplied can be upsetting) and was prescribed some antibiotic eyedrops afterward. Wanting to hold costs down, I called around for the best price. The tiny bottle of drops retail price varied from sixty dollars to eighty dollars. The sixty dollar option was 20 miles away, the eighty dollar option was less than a mile.
But the co-pay was $26 regardless of where I bought the drug (which retails for $24 in Canada). Ultimately I went to the close pharmacy, which happened to have the most expensive retail price. With gasoline at almost $4.50 per gallon it was an easy choice.
Free Martian Whores!
The article is about Medical Insurance (HMO's, etc) paying for consumer devices such as iPhones and software to run medical uses,
Exactly. iPhones are not medical devices. "Medical Device" has special meaning, and an iPhone with some medical apps on it does not a medical device make.
Either these people are choosing the wrong type of insurance (The correct type, or at least the only type you are going to find in existence) is that which I pointed out, or they are choosing the wrong type of device for their health. This claim however is ludicrous.
Medical insurance is to cover actual medical devices. There is a very good reason these things cost more than a smartphone ever would. They need to be safety tested with live humans, and that is not cheap.
If Apple does not wish to pay all of that money to have the iPhone certified as a medical device (and there is no reason they should), then you can't claim it a medical device, and medical insurance doesn't come into the picture.
If Apple DID want to pay for that testing, the cost of said testing will be added to the price for the end-user, and the iPhone wouldn't be $400 but $8000 instead, and these people would be having the exact same complaint.
"For the millions of Americans with A.L.S., Down syndrome, autism, strokes and other speech-impairing conditions"
down syndrome...wait...what?
the kids retarded, not mute. im pretty sure i heard him say "i can count to potato!" the last forty or fifty times. no iphone required.
Autistic people granted are broad, but are either completely incapable of conversation, or theyre found annoying when they attempt it through mirroring an entire episode of sesame street in a bank or church. nothing requiring an iphone there.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Medical insurance is to cover actual medical devices. There is a very good reason these things cost more than a smartphone ever would. They need to be safety tested with live humans, and that is not cheap.
True for things that can kill you if they fail. Imagine an implanted pacemaker blowing up like an iPhone ;-)
But if you use a smartphone (with special software) in a way similar to how able-bodied people use it, special safety testing may be unnecessary.
Hence I propose a new category "medical assistance device (non-hazardous)" that can be used without expensive special certification. It could cover things like general purpose computers that are loaded with special software, limited to applications where errors pose no significant health hazard.
C - the footgun of programming languages
Do you really think that insurance companies would have much power or money if healthcare became really cheap and successful? For companies passing money along, their own profits usually end up being a percentage of what flows through them. That's why insurance companies actually don't mind the cost explosion in the health care system; they don't pay for it, you do, they just take a cut.