[ Contents | Search | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Kevin Eldridge
Date: 12 Oct 2010
Time: 10:37:53 -0500
Remote Name: 71.201.115.194
John, I hadn't thought about categorizing speech devices as "only correct(ing) the fluency of speech), but I have thought about devices and insurance. On the one hand, in the US, most insurance policies would cover rental of crutches if someone broke their leg (which doesn't correct the problem) but most policies don't cover eyeglasses. You need a supplemental policy for that. To me the issue with covering DAF and AAF devices (like the SpeechEasy) is that the limited research done by independent labs suggests no real long term benefit. For this reason, I don't think they should be covered. I think that the "average" PWS would be better served with $3000 - 5000 worth of therapy than an expensive device. So, while they may help some people, it appears that devices doesn't help most. I'm a big proponent of using our health care dollars wisely (I'd actually rather see a government owned insurance program that put health care savings back into the system rather than in the pockets of shareholders and CEOs). I"m sure others will disagree with my thoughts on speech devices and health care :-)