Proloquo2Go is a text-to-speech iPhone app that's meant to aid those with autism, cerebral palsy, ALS, Down Syndrome—pretty much anyone who has a disability that makes speaking a difficult venture. It costs $150.

But Medicare/Medicaid restrictions won't pay for this software or the accompanying iPhone because the iPhone is not a uni-functional device. (A person with autism might play games on it, after all! Or call a doctor!)

One family's alternative, as documented by the NYTimes, is a government-funded $8000 desktop computer that can have no other function than text-to-speech. No emailing doctors. No browsing the web for medical research. So, this pricey clunker sits at home while the family pays out of pocket for the iPhone app that can operate in their real, mobile life.

Medicare acknowledges the situation. They have heard of the iPhone, as they explain in their official statement on the matter: "We would not cover the iPhones and netbooks with speech-generating software capabilities because they are useful in the absence of an illness or injury."

But with the nation's eyes on our healthcare policies, there's never been a better time to reassess such archaic thinking. All things equal, a company like Apple or RIM will always make superior hardware to that of some boutique electronics company, and they'll do so for pennies on the dollar. Even more importantly, these better distributed hardware platforms will be rewarded with greater enthusiasm and expertise from software designers—the real innovators in today's design-heavy electronics industry.

I'm no health care expert, but it's obvious that reform in this sector would be a win-win. Taxpayers would save money. Government programs would aid more individuals. And those being helped would simply be helped better, with more options and ultimately in a way more specific to their particular problem.

But the government can't subsidize a semi-open platform that would drive both technological innovation and market competition. That's crazy talk! [Proloquo2Go and NYTimes]

The FDA issued a statement to say that they have determined that the Palm Pistol "is not a medical device." Although the inventor thought the successful registration of his company as a medical device facility constituted an FDA approval of his gun for the olds, the fine print says otherwise:

Registering ... does not, in any way, constitute FDA approval of your facility or your devices

The maker of the geriatric zip gun, Matthew Carmel of Constitution Arms, has a theory, saying he "would assume it's due to political pressure." It would have all been for naught anyway, according to a spokesperson for Medicare:

Medicare will not cover it because there is no approved category for weapons, so it would not be viewed as reasonable and necessary."

Now, this news doesn't mean that the Palm Pistol will be barred from sale at all, just that it won't be available through a prescription or Medicare. Sorry, Gran. [AP—Thanks, Jimmy]

In a statement submitted to Medgadget, the manufacturer, Constitution Arms, has revealed the following:

We thought you might be interested to learn that the FDA has completed its “Device/Not a Device” determination and concluded the handgun will be listed as a Class I Medical Device, exempt from 510(k) Pre-Market Notification in accordance with 21 CFR 890.5050 “Daily Activity Assist Device.”

We have now submitted an application to the CMS contractor Noridian for a DME (Durable Medical Equipment) Coding Verification in order to be assigned an HCPCS code. Once assigned , physicians will be able to prescribe the Palm Pistol for qualified patients who may seek reimbursement through Medicare or private health insurance companies.

Ok, right to bear arms , rights of the disabled and elderly, blah blah...but prescription handguns? Damn...I can't even get my contacts covered through my insurance company. My guess is that this will not end well. [Medgadget]