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.'"

Comments

Fraud-bait... tort-bait

[EmagGeek]

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...

Re:Fraud-bait... tort-bait

[JustinOpinion]

Pardon my ignorance, but why would a smartphone have to be classified as a "medical device" in order to be covered under a health insurance? Obviously policies can be arbitrarily detailed and include various restrictions... But it seems like any sensible policy (ha!) would include allowances for expenses relevant to your condition but not explicitly "medical". Like offsetting transportation costs for persons with limited mobility or a better bed for a person with a particular back condition. Does the taxi or bed have to get some special medical certification to be covered?

I would think the limiting factor should be getting a doctor's diagnosis. If a doctor signs-off, and says "person X has condition Y" and the policy covers condition Y, then anything that does the job of helping with condition Y should be fair game. Random people can't try to claim their smartphone as an health expense: only people with conditions that the smartphone helps alleviate.

(Of course, I'm being hopelessly naive about how health insurance works. You can tell I grew up in a country with universal healthcare.)

Re:Fraud-bait... tort-bait

[Lord Lode]

Indeed... And why would these devices have to be insured if they're cheap anyway?

Re:Fraud-bait... tort-bait

[corbettw]

Because insurance companies tie their definition of "medical device" to what Medicare reimburses for (one of the reasons for this is that Medicare constitutes such a large part of the market for people using medical devices that insurance companies find it cheaper to use their list than generate one of their own). And since Medicare has certain legal requirements for what a "medical device" is (including going through FDA approval), it can be expensive and complicated to get on that list. Hence, any device that is on the list is going to cost much more than one that isn't. The alternative is to let Medicare bureaucrats, who are not doctors, decide whether a device is medically necessary or not.

So you're not naive about how health insurance works. You've naive about how government programs in the United States work. Now maybe you can understand why most of us don't want the Federal government to have anything to do with health care: they'll just make it worse.

Re:Fraud-bait... tort-bait

[corbettw]

Guess the Republican mods are out in force because this is utter rubbish.

Seriously? Have you never known someone who got a handicap placard from an agreeable doctor, even though they didn't need one? Or what about the ease of getting a prescription for marijuana in California? There are clinics in LA where you just have to tell the doc you have "occasional headaches" and they'll write a script for pot. Are you trying to claim there won't be ANY doctors who would write a script for an iPhone for some reason or other?

Re:Fraud-bait... tort-bait

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

You can tell I grew up in a country with universal healthcare.

No, but I can tell that you threw in a useless addendum to an otherwise insightful post.

It's not exactly useless. In truth the procurement of items for medical treatment in countries with socialized healthcare is often quite different. Not always, mind you, but often. Without a financial motivation for whether or not patient obtains a device to help them, most people tend to be both compassionate and pragmatic. That is to say, rarely would a person be denied a cane as a medical expense because it is cheap and someone needs help walking. Rarely would someone be granted a power exoskeleton because it is expensive and excessive.

With a profit motive in the US healthcare system insurance companies make more money erecting artificial barriers that prevent people from getting any assistive device. They're in a position to impose arbitrary rules to make providing such devices harder so their issuance is rarer. At the same time medical suppliers an make money by specializing in jumping through the hoops and getting certified products which make them artificially scarce allowing said companies to charge a lot of money. Even with the few expensive payouts, the insurance companies save money so they keep the policies.

Of course you see what is missing from the above scenario. That is the compassion and the pragmatism. A normal person working in healthcare would say, "an iPhone with apps for the blind, yeah that makes sense to help a blind person and is a lot cheaper than a specialty device". Then they approve it. It is the system standing in the way, a system motivated by rules designed to maximize profits. This type of rule is a great deal rarer in socialized medicine

This isn't to say that other healthcare systems are better in this way, just different. Profit is not the only motive that can result in arbitrary rules detrimental to individuals who need healthcare. Government bureaucrats can be just as bad implementing rules to punish groups at the expense of the masses or implement policies to mollify their special interest group in order to get re-elected. For example, rules to make abortion practically unavailable in order to appease a religious lobby or rules to refuse healthcare to overeating overweight people who are actually saving society money overall by their condition, but who much of society wants to punish for their sin.

Re:Fraud-bait... tort-bait

[Anonymous Coward]

If a doctor signs-off, and says "person X has condition Y" and the policy covers condition Y, then anything that does the job of helping with condition Y should be fair game.

If someone has a limp, they'd have an easier time getting around with a car. Should the policy give out free cars to everyone with a limp?

Re:Fraud-bait... tort-bait

[izm]

As somebody who spent a lot of time and energy helping acquire such a device for his father who suffered from ALS, I would like to highlight some important facts.

Many of the devices that the insurance companies cover are actually modified PC's. Before you say that people are better off buying a computer and having insurance foot the bill, look at the facts:

1. These PC's come modified with software and other interfaces which are specially designed based on years of research to meet the needs of the disabled for communication in the most intuitive way possible.

2. Often times the software is placed on an embedded windows system so that its harder to "break" with malware, and the like. Very few PC owners apart from the tech savy can say they've never gotten a computer virus or some form of malware. Even us techies slip up sometimes. Can you imagine if your lifeline were disabled by a virus? This is exactly what these devices are. Lifelines. People rely on them every day for the basic things we take for granted. Having the software embedded keeps the device functioning. Having functionality limited to...well....speaking...that makes the device far less daunting to those who might not be as computer savvy.

3. There are lots of different attachments available for these devices that let pretty much anyone with any level of disability use them. Each attachment is geared towards using the functionality a person has left. These are niche items that are pretty hard to come by at WalMart.

4. These computers are generally ruggedized (usually a toughbook, or something similar). The ruggedization is critical when the device goes everywhere with you.

The bottom line, really, is that these devices are designed to work any time anywhere for anyone. These are really custom solutions. Also, a whole lot of vendor support comes with the device, which is critical to making the most of it. This entire package, including the support, the level of customization in terms of input devices and software tools, and the level of quality and reliability seem to justify the high price in my eyes.

Your insurance company, believe it or not, has your best interest in mind as well as their own when they decide what is and isn't covered. These costly specialized devices are the best option for a whole lot of people. By only covering a solution like this, the insurance company knows you're getting what you need, which is tough to do if you're talking about building a system yourself.

I could have created a home-brew solution, but it would have been without the benefit of years of research into the progression of various diseases and the capabilities of somebody paralyzed from the neck down. Why should a patient have to deal with debugging a home-brew solution or trying to use a conventional mouse or keyboard when they can barely move their fingers? Being paralyzed is frustrating enough as it is...they don't need the extra stress.

On a side note, you can in fact work with the vendor and the insurance company to have an "add-on" placed in the computer-turned-medical device to allow you to use it as a computer as well. The expense is out of pocket, but is usually far less than the cost of a computer.

Ah, American insurers ...

[aeschenkarnos]

... is there anything stupid, evil or simply wrong that they will not do?

Perfect storm of regulation and corruption

[Dr_Barnowl]

At the same time, current policies mean that the government and private insurers may be spending unnecessary dollars on specialty machines

That's the point, isn't it?

On the one hand, devices have to go through insane amounts of certification to pass as an official medical device. On the other hand, I'm sure medical device manufacturers really don't want cheap (or even reasonably priced) software on commodity devices eating their lunch.

I suspect the regulations are doing their work for them, but if they weren't, they'd be colluding with the insurers to make damn sure they didn't support commodity devices.

Missing the other half...

[R2.0]

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.

Health Insurance: Broken Incentives Abound

[amplt1337]

No, really, it's everywhere.
A few years back, I had to have an operation on my foot. The doctor said he could do the operation in his office under local anesthetic and the whole thing would cost a couple thousand bucks (memory's fuzzy), or we could do it in a hospital where it'd be 5x more expensive. The catch? My insurance would cover the hospital outpatient surgery, but not his office (which was also a fully licensed and certified surgical center, just not attached to a hospital). So I did it in the hospital, of course; I was between contracts and couldn't afford to do otherwise even if I had felt noble enough to do it for the good of the health care system.

Misguided incentives like this are all over health insurance--just look at the varying coverage rates for preventive care vs. corrective care (like diabetes maintenance vs. amputations). If you can put off the treatment until later, there's a reasonable chance that some other insurance company will pick up the more expensive tab, and "patient outcomes? What's that?"

It's one of the strongest arguments for a single-payer healthcare system: the chance to remove loopholes that lead to these bad incentives.

Wow

[Sterrance]

I never thought I'd see an article that would refer to the iPhone as "cheap."

To be expected

[FreeUser]

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.

Re:To be expected

[FooAtWFU]

Have you tried getting the Canadian | British | French | $EUROPEAN_NATION's government to cover an iPhone for a speech impediment or other similar communications-related disability? Please, try it and let us know exactly how much better socialized medicine is in this regard.

Re:To be expected

[Wizard Drongo]

Yeah, they would. I mean, sure, they'll go for the medical device if it's better, but if a simple iPhone would work nicely, they'll get you an iPhone. Mainly 'cause in Scotland at least, that sort of decision is made by the local manager in the place you actually go to see the doctor/physio etc. The great thing about the NHS is that it divorces cost from medicine. Since it's all "free" to the patient and the doctor anyway, the doctor will go for the best medical option, regardless of if it costs less or more; admittedly there is some shilling still of GP's by big Pharma trying to get them to prescribe brand X drug, but it's mostly gone, and we see a lot more brand-x-generic now, and all gratuities from Big Pharma to the GP have to be declared. In the States, even if you get coverage, your insurance co. still get shafted by doctors that will order unnecessary tests etc. just to bump up the bill, because it's not his company the money's coming from. Here, it's all the same "company", so if you need a test, you get it. If not, you don't. On the bad side, whilst they'll never turn you down for treatment, depending on where you live, and what it is, you may be waiting a while for that hip-replacement/eye-operation etc.

Re:To be expected

[Rich0]

From what I've heard cost-cutting has a big impact. I know a guy who had some breathing problems in the UK, and the problem was handled with tiny little escalations until it became untreated Pneumonia and he was out of work for a month. It took a week before they gave him an x-ray, and it took a week to get the x-ray interpreted. Then it took about a week before they prescribed him an antibiotic.

I had a friend with similar symptoms in the US. They went to the ER at 10PM with difficulty breathing. They were x-rayed within about 15 minutes, and despite it being late at night the test was interpreted within an hour. Antibiotics and steroid nebulizer were immediately administered, and by about 1-2AM they were headed home with a prescription in hand. They still had a few symptoms the next day, but within 48 hours all symptoms were gone and they finished their prescription over the next week. No work/etc was missed aside from sleeping in a little the next morning.

In this case the UK actually shot itself in the foot since the patient in question missed a month of work - which was a huge net cost - just so they could try to save a few dollars on treatments that have been around for 50+ years. However, sick pay/etc doesn't come out of the NHS budget...

Somewhere there is a balance. The US is a mess, but so are most health care systems - they're just messy in different ways, and by different metrics.

Re:Now wait for it to be a government agency.

[maxume]

A big contributor to the lack of choice in health insurance is that employers treat it as a benefit, rather than compensation (if all those people were shopping with the dollars their employer is currently spending to cover them, there is some chance that there would be better options available, and probably even pools that were slightly easier to get into).

Of course, another issue with employer provided insurance is that there is small scale socialism going on (employers are willing to employ people with chronic conditions that are essentially not insurable (the condition), and the organization simply pays the cost of their medical care (even if it happens to be embedded in the premiums they pay)).

Totally Wrong

[tjstork]

Insurance is about risk management. It's a financial product, not a health one. I pay someone x amount of dollars to provide me the right get y amount of money back based on a risk. By demanding that insurance companies provide all of these things that have absolutely nothing to do with risk, you've screwed this country up. You've basically, like all liberals, twisted something else an excuse to go steal some money.

If you want to have money for people with chronic conditions, make them a federal problem and pay for it with tax money. I recommend taxing intellectual property and imports to come up with the dough.

But for me, all I want is a financial product that says I get coverage for if I have a sudden expensive illness. I don't need or want the federal government, or my employer, to do that.

1. Get employers out of health
2. Put chronic illnesses onto the government
3. Cut everything out of insurance that is non-risk related.

Duh.

Re:nope, they follow government guidelines

[MartinSchou]

Considering what you're describing, I'd have to think that the US is by far the most corrupt industrialised country in the western world.

When private companies (looking to make a profit) can provide cheaper health care than the government (who isn't looking to make a profit), something is very wrong, and the answer to that is usually corruption.

While we tend to complain about our hospitals (usually because of staffing issues), at least we don't face interesting questions such as "would I rather lose the house or the leg. The leg costs 100 grand, isn't covered by insurance, and I'd have to sell the house. And if I sell the house, where will we live? Maybe the wife'll leave me, or maybe child services will take the kids away."

And we don't have to worry about our doctor finding out that we have some kind of underlying but undiscovered illness. Or if we get one that takes forever to fight, to the extent that we lose our job over it and have to go on welfare for a while, at least we won't be fucked when we finally get back on our feet, just because we have a pre-existing condition that requires expensive medicine to cure.

Sure, if you can afford the insurance and weather a few years of really bad luck, I don't doubt that the US can provide some of the very best health service in the world. But I'm yet to hear of anyone in Denmark or Sweden who had to declare bankruptcy because they couldn't pay hospital costs.

As an example, I spent four days in a mental institution (checked myself in). That did cost me. A staggering 320 Swedish Kronar or 46 US$. Sure, that's more than it'd cost to feed myself for four days, but not by much. And considering I have a suicide attempt in my medical history, I think I'd be excluded over a pre-existing mental condition by most US HMOs if not all of them.

So again, if the private for profit companies can do a better job than your non-profit government, you have a massive problem with corruption. Not just in government, but also in the companies that provides these bribes and get away with it. But I don't think I've ever seen any mention of this in the mainstream US media, but considering none of them seem to be providing any kind of critical thinking and instead settle for either being cheerleaders or hecklers, I can't say I'm surprised.

why can't folks pay for their own devices?

[Satanboy]

I have 2 cousins who are deaf. They have been using smart phones for a long time rather than TTY devices. In addition, they are all over the net as a means of communication.

They have always paid for this out of pocket. Amazingly, they never had insurance companies to pay for their TTY devices in the first place (those devices cost around 400 bucks about twenty years ago) so I think they are happy just paying for a cheaper service.

I think getting closed captioning added to all televisions was the biggest savings for them. I know my aunt and uncle paid about 20 bucks a month or so and a couple hundred bucks up front for closed captioning devices about 20 years ago.

I'm not sure what insurance you would have that would have paid for these things in the past. I'm sure there are some plans, but honestly, for most 'normal' folks without great insurance plans, these things were just expenses that everyone paid for and just looked at as part of the expense of raising a child, no different than medicine, food, and clothing.

Re:nope, they follow government guidelines

[mcgrew]

why do people think health insurance is prohibitively expensive when bought outside an employer

Because it is.

It will get vastly worse when the government takes total control.

That's not been the case in the countries that do in fact have total government control of health care spending.

Re:IT'S MADONNA'S BIRTHDAY TODAY!

[digitig]

Why was that modded offtopic? Clearly it was going to be about how "how many people suddenly come down with "disabilities" once insurance companies start paying for fancy PDAs and SmartPhones", although I'm not sure that attention deficit disorder is much helped by fancy PDAs and -- oh, look! A butterfly!

US medical system

[valentyn]

As the Obama healthcare reform is also international news, I read an analysis of the US medical system here in the local newspaper in The Netherlands. The US as a country spends twice as much for it's healthcare as Germany and France, while only 83% of the US Americans have an insurance.

This is because US healthcare is not about health; it is about the caring industry. There's no room for prevention (as there's no profit from prevention), there's only room for Care.

TFA seems just like another example of it.

Re:nope, they follow government guidelines

[radtea]

But I don't think I've ever seen any mention of this in the mainstream US media

You have, you just don't understand the code-words. When the American media talks about "the free market" and "free market capitalism" they mean "our utterly corrupt system where corporate and Party interests have completely captured the organs of the State and use them to futher their own interests."

Americans call this system of plutocratic oligarchy a "free" market for historical reasons, although arguably "free" could also mean, "free of economic rationality, ethics and democratic oversight."

Re:nope, they follow government guidelines

[Red Flayer]

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.

That is because each state has different laws covering health insurance. There is no government regulation preventing you from purchasing insurance from a carrier in a different state, nor is there regulation preventing an insurance company from selling in multiple states.

Your employer gets a tax deduction for your insurance that you cannot get if you buy your own.

100% false. You can deduct medical insurance premiums.

when you go to buy it you get soaked because each state piles on its mandated coverage to the already onerous federal mandates

This is a separate issue, and one worthy of debate. The alternative to mandated coverages (which are much less onerous than you assume, I think) is insurers selling insurance, collecting premiums, then denying claims for seemingly random conditions. This was a HUGE problem before states stepped in to regulate the medical insurance industry. While it needs to be balanced against efficiency, there is no doubt in my mind that mandated coverages have been a big benefit to insurance buyers.

As for the first two items I addrsssed, you are either being disingenuous or are grossly misinformed. I hope it's the latter, but I'm not sure.

While I agree that over-regulation can be a problem, under-regulation can also be a problem. Letting the insurance companies do what they want will not result in a better outcome for the people who buy insurance. We've been there, and it doesn't work. My big complaint with over-regulation is that it creates barriers to entry due to compliance costs; however, there are already significant barriers to entry in the medical insurance business because of the cost of catastrophic cases (capital reserves need to be very large, which keeps new entrants out; also, bad luck could easily mean insolvency for a small insurer).

Re:It's government's fault

[Svartalf]

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.

American Medical Horrors Dwarf the NHS' Issues

[FreeUser]

People gripe about the NHS, and like every medical system in the world, it does have its problems, but I've seen worse reports about far worse hospitals and systematic medical abuse in the US. Indeed, google "malpractice", "medical abuse", and "nursing home abuse" and you'll find the horrors in the American system dwarf those of most of the rest of the industrialized world, not just in number, but in severity.

As someone who has used both the American and British systems (as well as the French and German system by the way), I can unequivocably say that the NHS is as good as and often better than the American system by every metric, including timliness of treatment, quality of treatment, professionalism, cost, you name it. Unlike most of the right-wing ignoramouses here I've actually travelled beyond the borders of my country and indeed lived many years abroad, and have seen different systems first hand. Wait times in the US for privately insured patients are, contrary to myth and right-wing propoganda, at least as long as they are in the UK (where I currently reside), and longer than in France and Germany (both of which also have what Americans call "socialized" medicine).

And before my fellow countrymen start chanting "Best in the World" to themselves, they really ought to stop and ask themselves why the richest Russians, Chinese, Arabs, and Europeans all tend to go to France, Germany and the UK for their treatment rather than the US (not always, but more often than not). Hell, even Farah Faucette ended up travelling to Germany to treat her cancer because she couldn't get the proper treatment in the US (and lived for years longer than expected as a result). Why do so many travel to France, Germany, and the UK rather than the United States? I'll give you a hint: it isn't about money (these people are richer than God), nor about getting a Visa (these people belong to the moneyed elite and can buy their way into anyplace, be it the European Union, the United States, hell, even Switzerland). These people go where they believe they'll get the best medical treatment bar none, at any price, and more often than not, it isn't the United States. And that will probably continue, no matter how often we lie to ourselves about being "the best in the world." We're not, in many things, most especially medicine, and it's high time we recognized this and remediated it.

Re:Soo.....

[rickb928]

Every claim adds to your history as a cost to the insurance company.

File a claim for your iPhone, and if you don't have replacement cost coverage, you will get a pittance, relatively speaking.

And then your premiums will go up. Look around for cheaper coverage, and there will be none - the other companies see your CLUE report and realize you file claims.

You will pay more in premiums than you ever did for the iPhone.

Now, this seems counterintuitive. Why would using your insurance actually cost you more? Ah, there is an answer. You see, insurance should be there for losses that you CAN'T afford. You can spring for the iPhone, it's having yoru house burn down or the back room be crushed by a falling tree that you want and need insurance for. And for the burglar that slips on the pool deck and sues you for their sprained back. Actually, you get insurance to pay the lawyers to defend you against that, but another topic...

So, perhaps you buy the carrier's insurance for the iPhone - a little pricey, but cheaper than having your homeowner's insurance 'skyrocket' for the next 5 years.

True story - I got a Palm Pilot 5000 when it was first out. Sweet. Dropped it the third day I had it, cracked the screen magnificently. Sent it in with $100 and fixed good as new. Dropped it again two days later. I learned to treat it gently, and never cracked another one, from the IIIc to V to Vx. The next item I cracked was my Toshiba Gigabeat, in my gym bag, whacked a door frame. $30, some time to tear it apart, and I have a white S60. I learned to care for my devices, a lesson re-learned occasionally... If you're hard on stuff, you learn not to be, get protection, or pay. Life isn't fair, just real.

Re:like my states new medical marijuana program

[sjames]

If, like the iPhone, marijuana was legal without a medical claim, the number of frauds would fall off.

Re:nope, they follow government guidelines

[brkello]

Wow. You must get all your new from biased sources since you have everything backwards.

Buying insurance as an individual is incredibly expensive. The reason employers get a better deal is because they have a larger pool of people and can negotiate down prices. As an individual, you do not have that leverage so you get screwed. You are also screwed no matter how much you are willing to pay if you have a pre-existing condition (like pregnancy).

A public option would allow you to take it across state lines...so I don't know what you are complaining about there.

You are already paying for coverage you never use. And on top of that, you are paying for all the profits that go to the shareholders and the large CEO salaries. There is no way that it will be more expensive than the current system.

Again, one device being preferred over the other is already in the current system.

It has gotten vastly better for every industrialized country that has a single payer system. The mantra that government is bad is stupid and childish. Too much government is bad. Too little government is bad. It is time to realize for our businesses to compete and for us as individuals to be actually getting raises instead of paying more for health care, we need to do away with the for profit business of health insurance.

Re:Fraud or stupidity

[level_headed_midwest]

"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.

Re:Cripple Ware

[level_headed_midwest]

Insurance payment is determined by a bunch of bean counters sitting in a basement somewhere. They don't care about spite, they only care about their actuarial tables and the balance sheet. The insurance companies are willing to pay more for a device without any non-medical functions because it will end up costing them less in the long run. If they start to cover stuff like iPhones, then people who want an iPhone will lie to and badger a doctor into diagnosing them with an illness they don't really have just so they can get a "free" iPhone from their insurer.

Or, if you want me make a scenario:

1. There are 1000 patients that actually need the device. The insurance company decides to only approve the $20k medical device, so they spend $20M.

2. There are 1000 patients that actually need the device. The insurance company decides to approve $500 iPhones. They spend $500K on iPhones for the legitimate patients. Word gets out that the insurance company pays for iPhones, so 100,000 people now "need" this device. The insurance company is now out $50.5M to treat the 1000 people who actually needed the device instead of the previous $20M.

Spite has nothing to do with it; it's all about minimizing risk.

Re:Fraud or stupidity

[JPLemme]

Wow. You have anger issues, my friend. But regardless, perhaps it would be wise if you took a Valium and then went back and read the article in question. Nowhere is it suggested that insurers pick up the tab for things that their customers currently pay for. The issue is that they are currently paying $8,000 for equipment that could be replaced with $500 worth of off-the-shelf kit, and that kit would be more effective and useful, to boot.

Your argument seems to be that insurance companies shouldn't actually pay out on claims, because that would make their customers "irresponsible" and "helpless twits", and you're absolutely correct that if all insurance companies refused to pay claims, then the price of insurance would surely plummet. But there's some sort of logical flaw in your argument that I can't quite put my finger on...

I believe the high cost of insurance is largely due to insurers wasting money, rather than insurers not telling their customers that they should just buy it themselves. But that's just me.

But in all seriousness, if you're ever in the market for insurance look me up. You would be a dream customer.

Re:Fraud or stupidity

[dissy]

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.

Re:IT'S MADONNA'S BIRTHDAY TODAY!

[mikael]

It reminds me of a lawsuit that the BBC got into once back in the 1980's. One of their consumer programs performed a comparison between "officially recommended" telephone units for the disabled and off-the-shelf novelty telephones over the cost/usability ratio. The officially recommended handsets were large, clunky, came in only one color and hand to be wall mounted or bolted to a table.

The best comparison that could be made today would be between this type of phone and a novelty phone with high contrast black/white and a loudspeaker for hand-free calling.

The company that actually made the clunky type threatened to sue because they had to go through all sorts of usability studies for each of the different categories of disability, then get approval to market their product as a disability aid. Because they were intended for use in hospitals, they also had to withstand the wear and tear of being in a public place.

Re:nope, they follow government guidelines

[schnablebg]

Your employer gets a tax deduction for your insurance that you cannot get if you buy your own.

100% false. You can deduct medical insurance premiums.

Not quite. Medical expenses are only deductible if they exceed 7.5% of your AGi, and you need to itemize, meaning that this deduction competes with the standard deduction. Contrast this with employer provided healthcare: you get to deduct all of it, and you can still take your standard deduction.

In both cases, this favors the rich.