Medicare and private health insurers decline to cover cheap devices like iPhones and netbook PCs that can help the speech-impaired, despite their usefulness and lower cost.
Instead, public and private insurers insist that, if Ms. Lynn and others like her want insurance to pay, they must spend 10 to 20 times as much for dedicated, proprietary devices that can do far less.
The logic: Insurance is supposed to cover medical devices, and smartphones or PCs can be used for nonmedical purposes, like playing video games or Web browsing...
This type of perverse logic is a big part of why I am highly distrustful of government claims that they can reduce healthcare costs. Their track record on just about everything else is not good.
Why don't private insurers cover this kind of technology?
Private insurers tend to follow the government’s lead in matters of coverage.
If we want to reduce costs, maybe what we need is less government involvement in healthcare rather than more?
Read more about how technology can help the speech impaired here.