3 ms·

This is, of course, going to be godawful expensive -- but I hope it gets treated as a "right" in a way that the iBot chair wasn't. I don't mean this particular

This is, of course, going to be godawful expensive -- but I hope it gets treated as a "right" in a way that the iBot chair wasn't. I don't mean this particular device necessarily, but there needs to be something driving these enabling technologies to the point that economies of scale can bring the injured (and, where possible, those suffering from congenital disabilities) into full participation in this world. Accommodation is nice, but removing the need for accommodation would be a hell of a lot better for all of us.

sp332 17y ago
The trouble with the iBot was that it was only reimbursed as a wheelchair. You wouldn't believe the hassle Dean Kamen went through with various government agencies and legislators trying to get it reimbursed at a reasonable rate, but it never happened. I think prosthetics are better in this regard. Kamen went after arms specifically because prosthetic legs are already really advanced (therefore expensive and properly reimbursed).
- stan_rogers 17y ago
  See, that's the kind of nonsense we need to be done with once and for all. A "mere wheelchair" is something a person recovering from an accident or surgery might need to use for a few weeks, or, perhaps, something like the equivalent of a bicycle for someone making a deliberate decision to be active. But for an alarmingly large number of people -- quads, high-loss paras, people with CP, MS or spinabifida, etc -- the "chair" is a prosthesis, a strap-on body that allows them to move through and interact with a world that is otherwise denied to them. Until enough people can see that, we can't say we've progressed much beyond the point of handing out begging-bowls...
karzeem 17y ago
Reimbursement for prosthetics can vary a lot depending on the patient population you're talking about. An elderly diabetic who rarely leaves home and loses a leg would be lucky to get something halfway wearable. But for young, active people, a lot of insurance companies regard a C-Leg (which costs something like $50,000 altogether) as pretty much standard. (I say that as a C-Leg owner.) Prosthetic legs aren't phenomenal, but they're way ahead of arms. I think the combination of this new arm (which may be the first that's both highly wearable and produces serious functionality improvements) and a high-visibility patient population that skews young and active spells good things for reimbursement.

sp332 17y ago

The trouble with the iBot was that it was only reimbursed as a wheelchair. You wouldn't believe the hassle Dean Kamen went through with various government agencies and legislators trying to get it reimbursed at a reasonable rate, but it never happened. I think prosthetics are better in this regard. Kamen went after arms specifically because prosthetic legs are already really advanced (therefore expensive and properly reimbursed).

stan_rogers 17y ago
See, that's the kind of nonsense we need to be done with once and for all. A "mere wheelchair" is something a person recovering from an accident or surgery might need to use for a few weeks, or, perhaps, something like the equivalent of a bicycle for someone making a deliberate decision to be active. But for an alarmingly large number of people -- quads, high-loss paras, people with CP, MS or spinabifida, etc -- the "chair" is a prosthesis, a strap-on body that allows them to move through and interact with a world that is otherwise denied to them. Until enough people can see that, we can't say we've progressed much beyond the point of handing out begging-bowls...

karzeem 17y ago

Reimbursement for prosthetics can vary a lot depending on the patient population you're talking about. An elderly diabetic who rarely leaves home and loses a leg would be lucky to get something halfway wearable. But for young, active people, a lot of insurance companies regard a C-Leg (which costs something like $50,000 altogether) as pretty much standard. (I say that as a C-Leg owner.) Prosthetic legs aren't phenomenal, but they're way ahead of arms. I think the combination of this new arm (which may be the first that's both highly wearable and produces serious functionality improvements) and a high-visibility patient population that skews young and active spells good things for reimbursement.