I can use a computer + internet to search WebMD to determine if I need to see a doctor, which costs less than to actually see a doctor. Thus, my computer and internet should be covered by insurance companies, right?
On the surface this seems like crap. But there is much more too it. I'm sad that you are quick to say it's "greed/corruptions" without doing your research.
Why pay $8000 for something a $199 product can do.
Well first, lets talk about abuse. If hospitals were handing out free iphones subsidized by insurance companies, there would be a likely increase in fraud.
Second, reliability. The iphone is great and all, but it's not designed to last for more than a generation or two. The iphone comes with a 1 year warranty that covers *only* manufacturers defects. Accidental damage is not covered. That's not going to the be the case of a $8000 device specifically designed for this purpose. The NYT article mentions the device is much sturdier than an iphone.
Third, subsidies. The iphone is sold at $199, but thats because it's subsidized by AT&T. The real cost is like $499 to $599. The cost is much lower for the iphone, because many more iphones are built than are these special devices. When you only build 5,000 of these machines, the cost to build them will be much higher.
Finally, as mentioned before, the ipod is planned to be obselete. Apple no longer sells first gen ipods, you have to buy them 2nd hand. Thats not the case with these type of medical devices. They're designed so that the manufacturer can build more of them if necessary. That requires them to stock up on parts early on. Boeing's jets run on *really* expensive PC hardware. The same hardware that can be built to order for much cheaper. But the added cost goes to cover more than just the cost of the hardware.
It's great that people are looking for ways to save money, especially now when health care costs are at an all time high, but I think it is unfair for any journalist (yes weekend bloggers are journalists too) to pass comments and opinions as fact without concrete evidence.
Just like I said in the other thread, before the flame war started, the people that actually need this device most likely won't be able to hit the little buttons on the iphone/ipod. They just don't have the coordination. Being the IT support for our school district's special ed department, I've set up quite a few of these devices.
Should an iPhone be covered? No, I don't think so. Should an iPod Touch be covered? Maybe. Should at the very least, the Application for said devices be covered? YES!
@Spikey: If it's for medical purposes, you can pay for them with a Flexible Spending Account (FSA) or by deducting them from your taxes (assuming you itemize).
FWIW, I agree, the software should be covered, but not necessarily the device.
@★☆★ Waka ★☆★: Oh, I don't know, how about a doctor's recommendation like anything else? I mean, we set some stringent rules on M.D. certs. (supply restriction anyone?), so shouldn't they use these bastions of integrity and knowledge, saving themselves $7500?
@★☆★ Waka ★☆★: Um, lets see, have a doctor figure out if they actually can't talk or not. It's not that hard.
Doctor: Can you talk?
Patient: No I can't... D'oh!
Doctor: Coverage denied. No iPhone for you! NEXT!
Any competent doctor will be able to tell if someone is faking something like that or not. And if there are worries that the doctor is also in on the scam, have two doctors give two separate diagnosis. That keeps the system honest. They aren't both going to lie if they know others are going to check.
I've got to go to whatever corporate retreat these guys went to. I have a suspicion that there were seminars hosted by Bernie Madoff and Mike Milliken.
@cgsofly: Why does it have to be either/or? At Best Buy, where wonderful things happen, it may be possible that you're both being cheated AND the employee is a total douche.
09/20/09
09/20/09
Why pay $8000 for something a $199 product can do.
Well first, lets talk about abuse. If hospitals were handing out free iphones subsidized by insurance companies, there would be a likely increase in fraud.
Second, reliability. The iphone is great and all, but it's not designed to last for more than a generation or two. The iphone comes with a 1 year warranty that covers *only* manufacturers defects. Accidental damage is not covered. That's not going to the be the case of a $8000 device specifically designed for this purpose. The NYT article mentions the device is much sturdier than an iphone.
Third, subsidies. The iphone is sold at $199, but thats because it's subsidized by AT&T. The real cost is like $499 to $599. The cost is much lower for the iphone, because many more iphones are built than are these special devices. When you only build 5,000 of these machines, the cost to build them will be much higher.
Finally, as mentioned before, the ipod is planned to be obselete. Apple no longer sells first gen ipods, you have to buy them 2nd hand. Thats not the case with these type of medical devices. They're designed so that the manufacturer can build more of them if necessary. That requires them to stock up on parts early on. Boeing's jets run on *really* expensive PC hardware. The same hardware that can be built to order for much cheaper. But the added cost goes to cover more than just the cost of the hardware.
It's great that people are looking for ways to save money, especially now when health care costs are at an all time high, but I think it is unfair for any journalist (yes weekend bloggers are journalists too) to pass comments and opinions as fact without concrete evidence.
09/20/09
09/20/09
09/20/09
FWIW, I agree, the software should be covered, but not necessarily the device.
09/20/09
app = $150
minimum plan for iphone = 24months x $70 + taxes.
if they were arguing about an ipod touch, thats one thing.
when its an iphone, i definitely agree that it shouldn't be covered.
09/20/09
09/20/09
09/20/09
Doctor: Can you talk?
Patient: No I can't... D'oh!
Doctor: Coverage denied. No iPhone for you! NEXT!
Any competent doctor will be able to tell if someone is faking something like that or not. And if there are worries that the doctor is also in on the scam, have two doctors give two separate diagnosis. That keeps the system honest. They aren't both going to lie if they know others are going to check.
09/20/09
09/20/09
12/24/08
His name is Robert Paul Bossany.
His name is Robert Paul Bossany.
12/24/08
12/24/08
01/06/09
01/06/09
12/24/08
12/24/08
12/24/08
12/24/08
12/24/08
12/24/08
12/24/08