They actually used to have them: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/who-killed-the-rechargeable-pacemaker/283365/ https://www.theatlantic.com/he

They actually used to have them: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/who-killed-the-rechargeable-pacemaker/283365/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/who-kille... https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/654882 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/65488... The short of it is that pacemakers last years already, and there's definitely an economic incentive to being able to charge thousands of dollars for a new device/battery, regardless of what The Atlantic would like to have you believe. The complications associated with pacemaker placement are high enough to warrant the risk reduction of only placing one once. You might argue that most patients don't need a pacemaker replacement since they're most likely going to die before needing one. What about the younger patient population of kids and young adults that need them due to arrhythmias or congenital heart disease? There's maybe an argument to be made towards inconsistent battery life and not being sure when the batteries will fail due to lower and lower charge capacities. But pacemakers all have variable battery life due to each person's need for pacing. If someone needs constant pacing, they will probably need a replacement sooner. If it's every once in a while that they have an arrhythmia, then it will last far longer.