Is there equal reimbursement of prosthetic technology for individuals with congenital UL deficiency/difference vs. individuals with acquired loss?

And are all cases being treated equitably whether they are 'high-profile' and reported by the media vs the 'average' human being who lives life under the radar?

Well, these are loaded questions. -And deserve 'weigh-in' from my peers in the prosthetic industry as well as my clinical peers and my peers who are fellow consumers.

For starters, let's consider some factors that might heat up the discussion:

1. average life expectancy;

2. benefit of prosthesis use;

3. impact of overuse to the [alleged] intact upper limb;

4. benefit of the provision and use of diverse prosthetic technologies;

5. life span of these diverse prosthetic technologies;

6. cost of insurance (aren't we consumers of this as well?);

7. cost of advocacy;

8. should we even ponder the savings (profit?) accrued by the insurance 'providers'?;

9. are insurance companies truly 'providers' if they withhold reimbursement (how many prosthetic and rehabilitation companies have accounts receivable in excess of 120 days on previously approved devices and/or services? -or have gone out of business because of this?)?

10. are insurance companies truly 'providers' if they are not providing access to such technology?

Let's get this discussion going! I would love to receive your thoughts and will share my own as well.... Stay tuned!!!!

                                     (credit: Rhymes with Orange)