Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Tyrilean t1_ivir9ku wrote

Reply to comment by chrisdh79 in How Apple Watch is helping veterans and active service members deal with nightmares from PTSD by chrisdh79

I wonder why an app requires a prescription. I can’t see a downside to letting anyone have this. Veterans aren’t the only ones with nightmares.

21

_softlite t1_iviyrqv wrote

It's not just an app, it's a watch and phone with software pre-installed, and the bundle is designated as a Class II Medical Device by the FDA. I can only assume there's a lot more money in medical devices than IAPs, at least in the US, and to maintain their class they have to require a prescription.

16

Tyrilean t1_ivki7rz wrote

I get that, but it’s not a special medical phone and watch. It’s an iPhone and an Apple Watch. Which I’m currently holding/wearing. The app is the special sauce, and that’s what’s being withheld.

2

_softlite t1_ivm9x7v wrote

I didn’t mean to make it sound like the hardware was specialized, only that it’s not a prescription for software but rather an entire “medical device.” Existing as a physical object is probably a requirement for their product to qualify as a “Class II medical device,” which then allows them to sell the package for an insanely high price—even if the physical component is just off-the-shelf tech. And while I can see how you might think this is them “withholding” the product, in the sense that it’s not freely available, it isn’t completely inaccessible—at least, not for the people who need it.

A less cynical reason for their strategy might be that the project received funding specifically for the development of a breakthrough medical device. That funding may have included limitations on what they could do with the result of that development, including limitations that prevent them from either selling it directly to the public or from commercial profit (I.e., profit from a source of payment that doesn’t qualify as a medical expense).

There are a lot of medical devices/other types of objects that require a prescription for no particular reason. My doctor once prescribed me a sandal, which was in every way the same as something I could have bought for $5 except it was a medical-ish pale green and 20x the price.

1

3d_extra t1_ivo8f4k wrote

I think it is way simpler than that. They can't have doctors systematically recommend to buy apple watches because there is some app on there. If it is FDA approved then it might become possible to have it as a reimbursable for vets. Apple probably saw that there are a lot of vets without Apple watches and an unmet need. More sales for Apple and perhaps some benefits for vets.

1

M365Certified t1_iwmdafq wrote

Its the reimbursable part.

The VA will pay for a Medical Device. If its just an App, then the VA will pay for just the App and the Vet is stuck buying an App, which even a $250 SE watch can be a lot for a Vet struggling with employment due to PTSD.

1

Jorycle t1_ivjbsu6 wrote

True, but that's still basically just an app, since they're not adding anything new to either the phone or the watch. Seems like a weird money making scheme to me - and money for Apple, since they can petition for even more goofy "Apple watch saved my friend's dog's uncle" ads/articles.

1

Kako0404 t1_ivjyeul wrote

So yes on one hand being FDA approved means they can charge more for the subscription. On the other hand it opens the door for insurance coverage for users.

1